HOTHSINa ». BOUSQUET. 633 �Hdthbino ». Bousquet and othejrs. �lOirmit Court, D. Ima. May 11, 1881.) �1. Public Opfickb — Conthact — Liabilitt. �Suit being brought against the members of the board of supervis- ors of Marion county for a reward publioly ofEered " by order of the board ol supervisors. H. D. Lucas, chairman,"— Md ; �(1) That the ofler clearly appeared to have been made by the defend- ants in their ofllcial capacity, and not as individuala. �(2) That their authority to make contract being a matter of law, plaintiffs had notice of their want of authority, and could not there- fore hold the defendants personally llable. �Demurrer. �McCbaby, C. J . This is an action to recover the sum of �$5,000, which the defendants, whowere members of the board �of supervisors of Marion county, offered as a reward for the �apprehension and conviction of the robbers of the treasury �of that county. The question is before us upon a demurrer �to the petition. The plaintiff claims to recover upon two �grounds : �(1) That the defendants ofEered the reward as individuals, and not in their oflScial capacity as supervisors, and that, consequently, the contract upon which the plaintiff counts is a personal contract, binding upon the defendants as individuals. (2) That if the defendants assumed to bind the county of Marion by the ofifer of the reward in question, they tran- scended their authority as supervisors, and therefore, by the law of agency, becaine themselves personally bound to perfonn the contract. �The action eannot, in our judgment, be maintained on the first ground because the undertaking as set out in the peti- tion does not admit of the construction that it was the in- tention of the parties that the defendants should be person- ally bound to pay the offered reward. It is perfectly clear that the offer wag made by the defendants in their officiai capacity, and that it must have been so understood by both parties. The averments of the petitioner are — �That the defendants were the legally-elected and acting board of super- visors of Marion county ; that on the tenth of October the defendants, assuming to act for said county, but without authority, caused to be pub- lished and circulated a certain circular letter in the following words : v.7,no.l0— 53 ��� �
