115 F.2d 34 | 10th Cir. | 1940
The assignment involved herein recited that Joyce & Company
“This is to certify that the above described claim has been audited, approved and allowed by the Oklahoma State Highway Commission. Warrant, when payable, will be issued direct to Assignee.”
We granted a rehearing limited to the question of whether such endorsement constituted an acceptance by the Commission, and if so, the legal effect thereof.
The Oklahoma State Department of Highways was created by ch. 12, § 1, O.S.L. 1933, O.S. 1934 Supp., § 10072a, 69 Okl.St. Ann. § 21. Its powers and duties are defined by § 6 of that act. O.S.1934 Supp., § 10072f, 69 Okl.St.Ann. § 26. It is empowered to contract for the construction or improvement of state highways. It is not expressly empowered to accept assignments of claims.
Sec. 2, ch. 167, O.S.L.1933, O.S. 1934 Supp., § 10124b, 69 Okl.St.Ann. § 93 note, provides that the state highway construction and maintenance fund shall be disbursed and paid out of the state treasury upon warrants drawn and approved by the state auditor upon verified claims audited and approved by the Commission. The endorsement merely recited that the Commission had audited and approved the claim, in
The further language of the endorsement that the warrant, when payable, would be issued to the assignee purports to be the act of the chief of accounts and not the act of the Commission. ' Clearly, the chief of accounts had no authority to make a contract. He could not act for the Commission. School Board of Carroll County v. First National Bank of Wytheville, 161 Va. 127, 170 S.E. 625.
It follows that the endorsement on the assignment did not constitute an acceptance and amounted to no more than an acknowledgment of notice of the assignment.
We adhere to the conclusion reached in our former opinion.
Hereinafter referred to as Joyce.
Hereinafter referred to as the Bank.
Hereinafter referred to as the Commission.
Williston on Contracts, Rev.Ed., Vol. 2, § 426.