J. A. ORMOND, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
COUNTY OF JACKSON, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a directed verdict for Jackson County, holding that a plaintiff could not recover for indexing services without an express contract or ratification by county commissioners.
No, a county can only be bound by contracts made or ratified by its commissioners as authorized by law. Plaintiff's own testimony failed to establish such a contract, and the relevant statute did not provide for quantum meruit payment in this scenario.
“No express contract with' the plaintiff was shown to have been made or ratified by the county commissioners with the plaintiff for the service alleged to have been rendered.”
Establishes the lack of a contractual basis for the plaintiff's claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff J. A. Ormond sued Jackson County for services rendered in indexing books in the clerk's office. The trial court directed a verdict for the c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Quantum Meruit Recovery cases and more on FLexlaw
[*65] Per Curiam.
The plaintiff in error brought an action against the County of Jackson to recover a stated sum for indexing certain -books kept in the clerk’s office of the county, wherein instruments were recorded. The court directed a verdict for the defendant and rendered judgment' thereon. Plaintiff took writ of error. No express contract with' the plaintiff was shown to have been made or ratified by the county commissioners with the plaintiff for the service alleged to have been rendered. The plaintiff’s own testimony fails to show a contract made by or for him with the county commissioners under statutory authority; and the county commissioners can bind the county only when and as authorized by law. The statute of 1893, Sec. -1833, Gen. Stats., under which the plaintiff seeks recovery, gives no authority for a quantum meruit payment, on the showing of service rendered by the plaintiff, he not being the clerk. -
Affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.