Opinion No. 56-0210

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports

Opinion No. 56-0210

DecidedFebruary 10, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of Opinion No. 56-0210 (Opinion No. 56-0210) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oklahoma Attorney General Reports primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Opinion No. 56-0210, (Okla. Super. Ct. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION — AG — ** CONFLICT OF INTERST — BUILDING — IMPROVEMENTS ** STATEMENT OF FACTS: " A, B AND C, OWN A WAREHOUSE, JOINTLY. C IS A COUNTY COMMISSIONER. THE WAREHOUSE OWNERS HAVE LEASED THE WAREHOUSE TO THE COUNTY FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF SURPLUS COMMODITIES FROM THE COUNTY HIGHWAY FUND. A AND B RECEIVE A NORMAL MONTHLY RENT. C RECEIVES NO RENT WHATSOEVER, FEELING IT WOULD BE IMPROPER FOR HIM TO DO BUSINESS WITH HIMSELF. C. HAS, HOWEVER, EXPENDED APPROXIMATELY $600.00 OF HIS PERSONAL FUNDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS OF THE BUILDING, MADE NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE COMMODITIES STORED THEREIN. A AND B NOW OFFER TO MAKE FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON THE BUILDING PROVIDED THAT THE COUNTY WILL PAY FOR THE LABOR, A AND B PAYING ONLY FOR THE MATERIALS. QUESTION(1): MAY C BE REIMBURSED BY THE COUNTY FOR THE PERSONAL EXPENDITURES HE HAS MADE ? — NEGATIVE, QUESTION(2): MAY THE COUNTY LEGALLY EXPEND FUNDS FOR LABOR TO EFFECT FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS ? — NEGATIVE (BUILDING, STRUCTURES, MAINTENANCE, IMPROVEMENTS, FUNDS) CITE: 15 O.S. 211 [15-211], 62 O.S. 371 [62-371] (CONTRACTS) (FRED HANSEN)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION — AG — ** CONFLICT OF INTERST — BUILDING — IMPROVEMENTS ** STATEMENT OF FACTS: " A, B AND C, OWN A WAREHOUSE, JOINTLY. C IS A COUNTY COMMISSIONER. THE WAREHOUSE OWNERS HAVE LEASED THE WAREHOUSE TO THE COUNTY FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF SURPLUS COMMODITIES FROM THE COUNTY HIGHWAY FUND. A AND B RECEIVE A NORMAL MONTHLY RENT. C RECEIVES NO RENT WHATSOEVER, FEELING IT WOULD BE IMPROPER FOR HIM TO DO BUSINESS WITH HIMSELF. C. HAS, HOWEVER, EXPENDED APPROXIMATELY $600.00 OF HIS PERSONAL FUNDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS OF THE BUILDING, MADE NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE COMMODITIES STORED THEREIN. A AND B NOW OFFER TO MAKE FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON THE BUILDING PROVIDED THAT THE COUNTY WILL PAY FOR THE LABOR, A AND B PAYING ONLY FOR THE MATERIALS. QUESTION(1): MAY C BE REIMBURSED BY THE COUNTY FOR THE PERSONAL EXPENDITURES HE HAS MADE ? — NEGATIVE, QUESTION(2): MAY THE COUNTY LEGALLY EXPEND FUNDS FOR LABOR TO EFFECT FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS ? — NEGATIVE (BUILDING, STRUCTURES, MAINTENANCE, IMPROVEMENTS, FUNDS) CITE: 15 O.S. 211 [15-211], 62 O.S. 371 [62-371] (CONTRACTS) (FRED HANSEN)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Opinion No. 56-0210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/opinion-no-56-0210-oklaag-1956.