"Section 5793, Comp. Stats. 1921, expressly authorizes the board of county commissioners to provide, and charges them with the duty of furnishing, the necessary supplies to the various county officers, and it has heretofore been held by this court that this duty cannot be delegated to some other officer or person, as was apparently attempted to be done in this case. Board of Commissioners of Tulsa County v. News-Dispatch Printing Audit Co., 104 Okla. 260. 231 P. 250; Board of County Commissioners v. Co-operative Publishing Co., 104 Okla. 262, 231 P. 251: Edelmann v. Board of County Commissioners, supra; and News-Dispatch Printing Auditing Co., v. Board of County Commissioners, supra."
It is within the legislative power to define the duties among the several county officers and to regulate county governmental affairs. Board of Comm'rs of Tulsa County v. News-Dispatch Printing Audit Co., 104 Okla. 260, 231 P. 250. Boards of County Commissioners derive their powers and authority wholly from the statutes, and acts performed by them must be done pursuant to authority granted by valid legislative action. State ex rel. Tharel v. Board of Commissioners of Creek County, 188 Okla. 184, 107 P.2d 542.
In Bockoven v. Board of Commissioners, 131 Okla. 114, 267 P. 1053, 1056, we said that sinking funds were impressed with a trust of the highest character. In Board of Commissioners of Tulsa County v. News-Dispatch Printing Audit Co., 104 Okla. 260, 231 P. 250, we held the action of the board of commissioners, in delegating to the county clerk the power to purchase supplies as agent of the board, invalid. The first two paragraphs of the syllabus in that case state the law as follows:
It is said in plaintiff's brief that it makes no denial of the fact that the plaintiff sold the merchandise to the district court reporter, and it is admitted by both parties that an appropriation had been made for supplies for the use of the district court reporter, but the plaintiff attempts to sustain the judgment upon the theory that the court reporter is a state official. Admitting, without deciding, that the court reporter is a state official, the charge which the plaintiff is seeking to make against the defendant involves the expenditure of county funds, and so long as county funds are to be expended, such expenditures must be made by the county officials charged with the duty of making them, regardless of the purpose for which the expenditures are made. Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County v. News Dispatch Printing Audit Co., 104 Okla. 260, 231 P. 250; Board of County Commissioners v. Co-operative Publishing Co., 104 Okla. 262, 231 P. 251. Moreover, section 1, chapter 49, Session Laws 1925, provides for the submission of all purchase orders and contracts to the officer charged with the keeping of proper records of the county, who shall, if there be an unincumbered balance in the appropriation for that purpose by the excise board, so certify by signing the purchase order or contract, and no purchase order is valid unless so certified. The plaintiff makes no pretense of complying with the provisions of this law, which provision was in force at the time of the alleged sale and has been re-enacted in section 1, art 1, ch. 32, Session Laws 1931, and is still in force.
"Section 5793, Comp. Stats. 1921, expressly authorizes the board of county commissioners to provide, and charges them with the duty of furnishing, the necessary supplies to the various county officers, and it has heretofore been held by this court that this duty cannot be delegated to some other officer or person as was apparently attempted to be done in this case. Board of Commissioners of Tulsa County v. News-Dispatch Printing Audit Co., 104 Okla. 260, 231 P. 250; Board of County Commissioners v. Co-Operative Publishing Co., 104 Okla. 262, 231 P. 251; Edelmann v. Board of County Commissioners supra; and News-Dispatch Printing Auditing Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, supra."
U.S. Rubber Co. v. City of Tulsa, 103 Okla. 163, 229 P. 771. See, also, Board of Com'rs of Tulsa County v. News Dispatch Co., 104 Okla. 260, 231 P. 250; Haskins Sells v. Okla. City, 36 Okla. 57, 126 P. 204. "A demurrer to the evidence searches the pleadings for the facts admitted as well as the evidence for the facts proved to determine whether or not the evidence is sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to the relief asked."
In the present case the board, of course, could not delegate to the clerk the duty and power to determine how many postage stamps should be purchased for use in the various county offices; the determination of that question is for the board alone. Board of Commissioners v. News-Dispatch Print Audit Co., 104 Okla. 260, 231 P. 250; Board of Commissioners v. Co-Operative Pub. Co., 104 Okla. 262, 231 P. 251. When the clerk, without authority, bought the postage stamps for the county, he did so at his peril If, upon considering his claim for reimbursement, the board had refused to ratify his act in making the purchase, and had disallowed his claim, he would have been without redress.
Section 5793, Comp. Stats. 1921, expressly authorizes the board of county commissioners to provide, and charges them with the duty of furnishing, the necessary supplies to the various county officers and it has heretofore been held by this court that this duty cannot be delegated to some other officer or person as was apparently attempted to be done in this case. Board of Com'rs of Tulsa County v. News-Dispatch Printing Audit Co., 104 Okla. 260, 231 P. 250; Board of County Com'rs v. Co-Operative Publishing Co., 104 Okla. 262, 231 P. 251: Edelmann v. Board of County Com'rs and News-Dispatch Printing Auditing Co. v. Board of County Com'rs, supra. The claim sued on herein having arisen out of contracts for supplies made by the various county officers above referred to, and not by the board of county commissioners as provided by law, they are invalid and not enforceable against the county.
Held, the contract is null and void," — following the cases of the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County v. CoOperative Publishing Co., 104 Okla. 262, 231 P. 251; Board of County Com'rs of Tulsa County v. News-Dispatch Print. Audit Company, 104 Okla. 260, 231 P. 250; Board of County Com'rs of Tulsa County v. Tulsa Camera Record Co., 103 Okla. 35. 228 P. 1103. The above cited cases and the authorities therein cited and quoted from are decisive of the exact question presented here, under the statute law of this state, at the time the indebtedness was incurred in this cause.
"The dates of the invoices * * * shall be taken and considered as the dates of delivery of said goods herein sold to the various county officers." Under the statute, section 5793, Comp. St. 1921, the board of county commissioners is charged with the duty of furnishing the necessary supplies to the various county officers, and it cannot delegate this duty to any officer or other person, and, in the recent case of Board of Com'rs of Tulsa County v. News-Dispatch Printing and Audit Co., 104 Okla. 260, 231 P. 250, this court held: "The statute has designated the board of county commissioners as the agent to purchase the necessary supplies for the use of other county officers in the performance of their official duties.