The board of county commissioners is designated purchasing agent of the county by statute. Section 5793, C. O. S. 1921. It alone is authorized to enter into contracts for and in behalf of the county. Board of County Com'rs of Tulsa County v. Tulsa Camera Record Co., 103 Okla. 35, 228 P. 1103; Edelmann v. Bd. of Com'rs of Le Flore County, 110 Okla. 172, 237 P. 94; News-Dispatch Ptg. Co. v. Le Flore County, 112 Okla. 138, 240 P. 64."
The board of county commissioners is designated purchasing agent of the county by statute. Section 5793, C. O. S. 1921. It alone is authorized to enter into contracts for and in behalf of the county. Tulsa County v. Tulsa Camera Record Co., 103 Okla. 35, 228 P. 1103; Edelman v. Bd. of Com'rs of LeFlore County, 110 Okla. 172, 257 P. 94; News-Dispatch Ptg. Co. v. LeFlore County, 112 Okla. 138, 240 P. 64. The judgment is erroneous for another reason.
However, in order to entitle a person to enforce a claim against a county, it is necessary that authorization therefor be found in the statutes. Board of Com'rs of Logan County v. State ex rel. Short, Atty. Gen., 122 Okla. 268, 254 P. 710; Schulte v. Board of Com'rs of Pontotoc Co., 122 Okla. 205, 253 P. 494; News-Dispatch Printing Audit Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Le Flore Co., 112 Okla. 138, 240 P. 64; Board of Com'rs of Tulsa County v. Tulsa Camera Record Co., 103 Okla. 35, 228 P. 1103. There is no authority for board of county commissioners by specific contract to employ attorneys for it and such employment would be ultra vires and void.
The question involved here, to wit, whether the company is entitled to recover the purchase price for the goods purchased by the individual county officers, has been definitely settled by former recent decisions of this court, and it is our conclusion, following the doctrine there laid down, that the plaintiff below was not entitled to recover on these claims or contracts against the county, unless it can be shown that the contracts rest on some express or implied provisions of law. Edelmann v. Board of Com'rs of LeFlore County, 110 Okla. 172, 237 P. 94; News-Dispatch Printing Audit Co. v. Board of Com'rs, 112 Okla. 138, 240 P. 64. 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.
There was testimony from which the trial court was justified in concluding that the whole case was at all times under the supervision and direction of the defendant in error, and an allowance of a fee of $2,000 to the defendant in error in the Wilson Pitman case and $4,000 in the Lucinda Pitman case is, we think, under the evidence, not unreasonable, in view of the importance of the litigation and the benefits that resulted to the estate. In any event, the judgment of the trial court is justified by evidence reasonably tending to support it, and in these circumstances the same will not be disturbed by this court on appeal. News Dispatch Printing Audit Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 112 Okla. 138, 240 P. 64; Enid Oil Pipe Line Co. v. Champlin, 113 Okla. 170, 240 P. 649. Upon a careful consideration of the entire record we conclude that the judgment of the trial court is correct, and should be and is hereby affirmed.
We are therefore not in accord with the contention made by appellant that the evidence does not sustain the court's finding but affirmatively and without contradiction shows that the instrument was acknowledged and delivered to appellant on July 3, 1918, and when there is any evidence reasonably supporting the judgment we will not disturb the same. ( News-Dispatch Printing Audit Co. v. Board of Commrs. (Okl.), 240 P. 64.) Since there is a conflict in the evidence as to the date of the acknowledgment and delivery of the instrument and the trial court having found, and there being sufficient competent evidence to sustain such a finding, that the instrument was not acknowledged or delivered prior to the third day of August, 1918, under the well-known rule we are not disposed to disturb the court's findings. ( Genter v. Morrison, 31 Barb. (N.Y.) 155.)