Births and deaths, and their registration, were not expressly mentioned in the Constitution (Art. 7, 28), or in the Act of February 5, 1875 (Ark. Stat's, 22-601), but expenditures for services by a local registrar were approved "for county purposes "in Burgess v. Johnson County, 158 Ark. 218, 250 S.W. 10. Agricultural and home demonstration agents and their work come within the broad scope of county purposes. Smith and Buechley v. Hempstead County, 180 Ark. 272, 21 S.W.2d 178; Watson and Smith v. Union County, 193 Ark. 559, 101 S.W.2d 791. See Ark. Stat's, Sec. 17-515 and 17-517.
Contracts of the kind in question are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the county court, and the fact, that the quorum court made an appropriation for the purpose has no binding effect upon the county, unless the county court enters into the contract, or thereafter ratifies his action as the county judge in doing so. Searcy County v. Jordan, 136 Ark. 138, 206 S.W. 129; Smith Buechley v. Hempstead County, 180 Ark. 272, 21 S.W.2d 178. As said in the case of Leathem Co. v. Jackson County, supra: "The county may, like an individual, ratify an unauthorized contract made in its behalf, if it is one the county could have made in the first instance. Such ratification will be equivalent to original authority."
1998); see Smith and Buechleyv. Hempstead County, 180 Ark. 272, 275, 21 S.W.2d 178 (1929) ("[T]he Legislature did not vest in the quorum court the power to make contracts for the expenditure of money appropriated by it."). As I noted in Ark. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2003-012: