Case ID: wend_9/html/0508-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Sutherland, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People, on the relation of the Board of Health of Poughkeepsie, vs. The Supervisors of Dutchess.
    ALBANY,
    April, 1833.
    The power to supervisors of a county to examine, settle and allow all accounts chargeable against a county, involves the right to reject, if sufficient reasons in tire opinion of the supervisors are not presented for the allowance. The supervisors have a discretion and may allow only such items of expenses incurred by boards of health in. execution of the act of 1832; for the preservation of the public health, as they think proper, except as to the compensation of the health officer of-a place, in relation to which they have no discretion, but must allow such compensation as has been fixed by the board of health under whose direction, he acts.
    Motion for a mandamus. The board of health of Poughkeepsie, in November, 1832, presented to the supervisors of the county of Dutchess a bill of expense incurred by them in the execution of the act for the preservation of the public health, passed in reference to the Asiatic cholera, on the 22d June, 1832, and requested that the same might be levied, collected and paid in like manner as other county charges are levied, collected and paid. Among the items of the bill of expenses so incurred was a charge for the compensation of the health officer of the board, which was audited and allowed at its full amount; but there were other items, such as physicians’ bills, printers’ bills, and bills of divers person for services rendered at the request of the board of health during the prevalence of the cholera in Poughkeepsie, portions of which only were allowed by the supervisors, and directed to be levied and collected as county charges. The supervisors were offered to be furnished with evidence in support of the several charges, but declined to receive it, and without any other evidence than the bills furnished by the board of heath, which had been audited and allowed by such board, they fixed the amounts which they thought proper to allow. The board of health now asks for a mandamus, commanding the supervisors to allow the whole of the bills to the full amount as audited by the board of health.
   By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

The revised statutes authorize the board of supervisors of each county to examine, settle, and allow all accounts chargeable against such county. 1 R. S. 367, § 4, sub, 2. This seems necessarily to imply the exercise of judgment and discretion in settling and allowing, and to involve the right to reject, if sufficient reasons for allowing are not in their opinion presented. The act of 1832, for the preservation of the public health, Laws of 1832, p. 581, § 5, sub. 3, authorizes the several boards of health which may be organized under it, to prescribe the duties and powers of the health officer, to direct him from time to time in the performance thereof, and tofx the compensation he shall receive. The ninth section makes all the expenses county charges, and declares that they shall be levied, collected and paid, under the direction of the board of supervisors in the same manner as other county charges. With the exception of the compensation to be paid to the health officer, the supervisors have the same discretion and control in relation to them, that they have as to all other county charges. They have no right to alter the compensation fixed by the board of health for the health officer; that the legislature have committed entirely to the discretion of the board of health, and that the supervisors must collect. This distinction has already been taken and acted upon in this court in the cases of The people, on the relation of the Board of Health of Schoharie, against the Supervisors of Schoharie, and The People, on the relation of Bartlett, against the Supervisors of Delaware, decided by Mr. Justice Nelson, at the special term held 27th November last. The compensation of the health officer in this case does not appear to have been rejected or reduced by the supervisors. The motion must therefore be denied.