Castle v. Bannock County
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Bannock County. Boards of county commissioners are entireties and can only act collectively and as empowered by law.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Bannock County. Boards of county commissioners are entireties and can only act collectively and as empowered by law. (Rankin v. Jauman, 4 Idaho, 391, 39 Pac. 1111; Conger v. Commissioners, 5 Idaho, 347, 48 Pac. 1064.) Our claim is that this bill of respondent was created under the provisions of section 1150 to 1153 inclusive, and that being a part of the expense of the board of health as a majority of the officers who under the law constitute the board, the same became and is a charge against Bannock county, and should be paid as provided under section 1154 of the…
1Opinion of the CourtStockslag-Er, J.
— On the eleventh day of January, 1901, respondent presented his bill to the board of county commissioners of Bannock county for the sum of $330.60. On the twenty-sixth day of January, 1901, the board of county commissioners passed upon said bill, allowing respondent sixty ■dollars and sixty cents, and disallowing the balance in the sum of $270. Respondent appealed to the district court of said county. On the fifteenth day of March, 1901, findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed, and on the same day judgment was entered reversing the action of the board of county commissioners of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- People v. CumminsMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- Board of Commissioners v. BuntingIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Rankin v. JaumanIdaho Supreme Court · 1895
- Elliott v. Kalkaska SupervisorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- Lebcher v. Board of CommissionersMontana Supreme Court · 1890
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Rolette State Bank v. Rollete CountyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1928
- H. J. McNeel, Inc. v. Canyon CountyIdaho Supreme Court · 1954
- H. J. McNeel, Inc. v. Canyon CountyIdaho Supreme Court · 1954