by the county, in the execution of the health laws and in carrying out and enforcing its own orders and regulations.

It seems quite clear, therefore, that when conditions arise which, under the provisions of section 3546f, above quoted, authorize the State Board of Health to take the matter in hand and act as the county board is authorized to act, the State Board may incur such expenses to be charged to the county, and such only, as the county board, if properly acting, might have incurred and properly have had charged to the county. In this connection it should be noted that the board of county commissioners when acting as a board of health, has no powers except those conferred by statute upon such board of health, unmodified and unchanged by the fact that such board is at the same time a board of county commissioners.

It will further be seen, by reference to section 3546f, above copied, that the State Board has authority to bring suit against or prosecute any local board of health for wilful failure to enforce the laws of this state in regard to health, and that, in that case, the local board of health may be required to bear the expenses of carrying out the orders of the State Board in the premises. I do not think this section can be construed to authorize a charge against the county, but must be regarded as providing a penalty for failure of the members of the local board to do their duty.

Section 3546e, Mills' Annotated Statutes, third volume, provides that the State Board of Health may call upon the local board to designate a person to act as health officer in the jurisdiction of said local board, which officer shall then act under the advice of the State Board. As I understand this provision, it makes the local health officer named by the local board, upon the request of the State Board, the agent of the State Board for the particular locality within the jurisdiction of said local board. Under all the circumstances, I do not think the law authorizes the State Board to

1

send a special health officer into a county and to charge the expense of so doing upon the county. It is a general rule that counties are not liable in any case unless made so by statutory provision. The law does not provide for a special health officer, but it does provide for the appointment of a regular health officer in each county or municipality, who shall act as the agent and executive officer of the State Board in that particular county or municipality. The only authority given by the statute to the State Board of Health to incur expense to be paid by the county or municipality, is that contained in the section above referred to, which clothes the State Board, under certain circumstances therein named, with the same authority in the suppression of disease and the care of the public health, as is given to local boards of health, and such authority must be exercised in the manner prescribed by the statutes granting it in order to make the county liable.

You further state that a verbal agreement was made between your board and two county commissioners of a certain county, by which the State Board was to send a special health officer into said county and by which the expense thus incurred was to be paid by the county, and ask to be informed how to proceed in order to collect said expense from the county.

It may be questioned whether or not the county board of health has any authority in any case, to bind the county by such a contract. I think it is quite clear, however, that no such authority rests in the members of the board acting informally. While this arrangement may have been such as would bind the two county commissioners personally, I do not think the county could thus be made liable.

Very truly yours,

D. M. CAMPBELL,

Attorney General.

By DAN B. CAREY,

Assistant.

IN RE

SPECIAL MEETING OF ELECTORS OF SCHOOL DISTRICT.

NOTICE: A notice of a special school district meeting which is signed and posted by the District Treasurer instead of by the Secretary, is not for that reason invalid, though the practice is to be condemned.

State of Colorado,

Attorney General's Office. Denver, Colorado, May 25, 1899.

HON. HELEN L. GRENFELL,

State Superintendent,

Denver, Colorado.

Dear Madam-I am in receipt of your favor of the 22d instant, in which you ask for my official opinion as to the legality of a special meeting of the electors of a third-class school district, which meeting was called in the manner stated in your letter, as follows:

"At a regularly called meeting of the school board all members were present and a motion to call a special meeting was carried by a vote of two to one. The secretary of the district refused to post the notices for the special meeting, which were then posted by the treasurer over his own signature. Will the meeting be illegal because, the notices were not signed by the secretary?"

In reply thereto I have the honor to submit the following:

The duties imposed by statute upon the school district secretary are in part as follows: "The secretary of each school board shall cause written or printed notice to be posted specifying the day and

*

* *

place or places of such (regular) election." "The general provisions of section 44 shall be applicable to all school elections, whether general or special or for whatever purpose held." "He shall give the required notice of all regular and special meetings as herein authorized."

Section 44, School Act (Section 4008, 3 M.

A. S.).

Section 46, School Act (Section 4010, 3 M.

A. S.).

Section 56, School Act (Section 4020, 2 M.
A. S.).

Section 62 of the School Act (Section 4026, 2 M. A. S.), provides as follows:

"In any district of the third class, the board of directors may at any time call a special meeting of the electors of such district, for any of the purposes specified in section sixty-two (sixty-three) of this act, and it shall be their duty to call such meeting if petitioned so to do by ten (10) legal voters of the district. Notices, specifying the time, place and object of such meeting shall be posted in three (3) public places, one of which shall be at the place of meeting, at least twenty (20) days prior to the time of holding such meeting."

Clearly it is by law made the duty of the secretary of third class districts to give the notice required by section 62 above. The question to be determined is, whether or not such meeting can be legally assembled with authority to transact business where the secretary refuses to perform his official duty in the matter of giving notice. The question is one which, so far as I have found, has never been raised or determined. An explanation of this lack of precedent in the matter may be found in the provisions of our school act. Under these provisions, a district secretary failing to perform his official duty is liable therefor upon his official bond, under the provisions of section 54 of the school act. (Section 4019, 2 M. A.

S.) Under the provisions of section 59 of the school act (Section 4023, 2 M. A. S.), his neglect or refusal to perform his official duty works a forfeiture of his right to compensation, and such failure or neglect, after being directed to act by a majority of the school board, subjects him to criminal prosecution.

Under the facts stated in your letter, it is apparent that the school board acted regularly under the provisions of section 62 above quoted, in the matter of calling the election, and the only question is as to the sufficiency of the notice.

A special school meeting convened without notice or upon a notice which fails to comply substantially with the statutory requirements, is invalid. For the purposes of this opinion, it is assumed that the notice in question is unobjectionable as to form and contents, as well as in the matter of the time and place of posting. The only question is, whether or not the fact that it was signed by the treasurer of the school district, and not by the secretary, makes it invalid. It is quite clear from section 62 of the school act, above set out, when construed with other portions of said act, that the validity of special elections and the business transacted thereat is made to depend upon the question whether or not the electors of the district have been properly notified and given an opportunity to be present and participate in such meeting. It will be noted that the statute, section 62 above, does not directly provide that the notice shall be signed by the secretary, but the direction that he shall "give" such notice unquestionably contemplates his signature attached thereto. In my opinion, however, the notice should not be held to be invalid for the irregularity alone which you have stated; certainly not where it appears that no injustice was done by such irregularity

The method adopted of giving the notice in question is, of course, to be condemned. It would seem that a vigorous enforcement of the laws above referred