TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Board of County Commissioners v. Churning

The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Phillips, in Error v. Churning, in Error

Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Churning, 4 Colo. App. 321 (1894)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Colorado Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 15, 1894
Judges
Thomson
Citations
4 Colo. App. 321
Headnotes
1. Counties — Name by Wiijcii Sued. It is provided by statute that the name in -which, a county shall sue or be sued shall be “ The Board oí County Commissioners of the County of--.” 2. Same. The right to sue a county is purely statutory, and the mode of instituting the suit prescribed by statute must be strictly followed. There being no authority to sue a county by any name than that designat- ■ ed by statute, a judgment against it by any other is a nullity. 3. Same. A writ of error sued out by a county in its proper name to reverse a judgment against it by another name will be dismissed.
Summary
JError to the County Court of Phillips County.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Thomson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Thomson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Fred C. Churning brought suit against Phillips county, to recover for certain services alleged to have been rendered, by him, as bailiff, by appointment of the county court of that count}!. Judgment was rendered in his favor. The county was sued by the name of “ Phillips County, Colorado.” It was so designated in all the subsequent proceedings, and judgment was given against it by that name. The writ of error was sued out, and a reversal of judgment is sought here, by “ The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Phillips.” •

Section 525 of the General Statutes (1883) provides as follows : “ In all suits or proceedings, by or against a county, *322 the name in which the county shall sue or be sued shall be, the board of county commissioners of the county of__; * * *. ” A county is a political subdivision of the state for governmental purposes, and, at common law, could neither sue nor be sued. It is only by virtue of statutory enactment that any action can be maintained, either in its behalf, or against it. The right to sue a county being purely statutory, where the mode of instituting the suit is prescribed by statute, it must be strictly followed. Schuyler Co. v. Mercer Co., 4 Gil. 20 ; Gilman v. Contra Costa Co., 8 Cal. 52 ; note to same case, 68 Am. Dec. 291 ; Monroe Co. v. Flynt, 80 Ga. 489 ; Rock Island Co. v. Steele, 31 Ill. 543 . We have but one statutory provision concerning the manner in which a suit shall be brought against a county. It must be brought against the board of county commissioners of the county sued. That is the corporate name of the county for the purposes of the suit, and there is no authority to sue it by any other name. In this case the statutory requirement having been disregarded, the judgment is a nullity.

But the plaintiff in error is “ The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Phillips.” It was not a party to the proceedings below. It cannot, in any way, be affected by the judgment. The statute provides no method for the enforcement of such a judgment; and, neither directly nor remotely, is the plaintiff'in error interested in it, or in any disposition which might be made of it. The case is therefore improperly in this court, and the writ of error is dismissed.

Dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1917: 11930: 11935: 119172026peak 1917 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Houser v. Olmstead230 N.W. 224 (S.D. 1930)
  2. Smith v. State1917 OK CR 143, 166 P. 463
  3. John Deere Plow Co. v. County of Phillips48 P.2d 793 (Colo. 1935)

Most recent

  1. John Deere Plow Co. v. County of Phillips48 P.2d 793 (Colo. 1935)
  2. Houser v. Olmstead230 N.W. 224 (S.D. 1930)
  3. Smith v. State1917 OK CR 143, 166 P. 463

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Cnty. of Monroe v. Flynt, 80 Ga. 489 (1888) 26
Gilman v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 8 Cal. 52 (1857) 21
Cnty. of Rock Island v. Steele, 31 Ill. 543 (1863) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list