This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
Where there is statutory provision therefor a public corporation may retain a special counsel.1 This has been recognized as an implied power where the interests of the corporation were affected in another state;2 or where the services of an attorney were needed suddenly, as to obtain an injunction.3 Where a public official is designated by statute as the attorney for a public corporation it cannot employ another attorney. Thus a county cannot employ special counsel in a suit of which the attorney-general is put in charge by statute;4 and cannot be held to pay attorney fees for suit on the bond of a defaulting county trustee, to the district attorney-general, his partner and the county attorney, where the members of the county court knew of the rendition of services, but did not know that the services were rendered in a private capacity.5 So where bonds are issued under an unconstitutional statute the board thus created cannot bind the city by employing an attorney to defend actions growing out of the act.6
18 Arbuckle-Ryan Co. v. Grand Ledge, 122 Mich. 491; 81 N. W. 358.
19 Rockebrandt v. Madison, 9 Ind. App. 227; 53 Am. St. Rep. 348; 36 N. E. 444.
20 Oakley v. Atlantic City, 63 N. J. L. 127; 44 Atl. 651. Power to levy a special tax for lighting does not limit a general power to light. Townsend, etc., Co. v. Port Town-send, 19 Wash. 407; 53 Pac. 551.
21 Whaley v. Commonwealth, 110 Ky. 154; 61 S. W. 35.
22 Alabama, etc., Co. v. Reed. 124 Ala, 253; 82 Am. St. Rep. 166; 27 So. 19.
23 Webb City, etc., Co. v. Webb City, 78 Mo. App. 422.
24 Leesburg v. Putnam. 103 Ga.
110; 68 Am. St. Rep. 80; 29 S. E. 602.
25 Board, etc., of Perry County v. Gardner, 155 Ind. 165; 57 N. E. 908.
26 Commissioners, etc., of Bar-stow County v. Conyers, 108 Ga. 559; 34 S. E. 351.
27 Huron Waterworks Co. v. Huron, 7 S. D. 9; 58 Am. St. Rep. 817; 30 L. R. A. 848; 62 N. W. 975. Compare Baily v. Philadelphia, 184 Pa. St. 594; 63 Am. St. Rep. 812; 39 L. R. A. 837; 39 Atl. 494, where it was held to have power to lease water-works.
28 City of Tampa v. Kaunitz, 39 Fla. 683; 63 Am. St. Rep. 202; 23 So. 416.
1 Appel v. State, 9 Wyom. 187; 61 Pac. 1015.