Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-01-25

W Do paul, huO luo dilOWduCc tuO1oOl
by majority OF the said bridge commission
ers and a certificate of the county auditor of
his having made the examination as re-
quired by law and found it correct, and
thereupon he has paid the claim on the aud
itor's warrant, therefor taking the receipt of
the party upon the claim SO paid.
That the law requires the treasurer to
pay the claims, not the auditors warrant
the warrant merely authorizing the payment
of the claim, and, to pay the claim, it is ne
| cessary that 1t should be produced with its
| approval and allowance as required by law
| and should be receipted to the treasurer, for
| otherwise he would have no voucher or evil
dence of its payment, as the auditors is re-
! quired to be Immediately returned to the
auditor, and under the practice which pre-
walls with the county commissioners it is
| soon thereafter destroyed.
! That he is ready ct any time to pay the
| claims referred to in the writ upon the
| authority of the auditors warrant when said
claim is presented, duly allowed ard approx
| ed, as required By law, as has been the
| practice in respect to al previous claims.
He further states that three separate, dis
tinct and different warrants of the county
auditor have been presented to him for pay
ment OF this identical claim, as he believes,
the amount and the party to whom payable
being the same in all, but none of them &C.
companied with the account or claim ITSELF
or any evidence of its allowance, and for
aught lie knows all of said warrants are now
outstanding and if he pays one he knows of
| no reason why he should not Fay all that are
presented.
The answer gives particular description
of the two warrants referred to, from which
it appears they are numbered the came as the
warrant first above set forth, to-wit: No. Is,
and the respondent asks to have the claim
which the auditor warrant authorizes him
to pay presented with the evidence OF allow
ance, that he may take receipt upon its pay
| ment and hold as a voucher, the warrant it
self being no voucher to him,as he is re-
quired to return it Immediately to the county
auditor, and he prays judgment whether he
should pay said warrant without The pre-
sentation to him of the claim, with evidence
of its allowance.
Chapter 100, special laws of 1873, pro-
vides as follows: All contracts made by the
said commissioners under said act for the
construction of said bridge (meaning the
bridge above referred toy shall be filed in the
county auditors Office of said county (mean-
ing Ramsey county,, and all claims arising
from any of said contracts or for services
rendered in and about the construction of
said bridge, or incidental expenses, shall be
first allowed and certified to by a majority
of said board under said acts, after which
the county auditor shall examine said claims
and accounts, sand if found correct, and in
accordance with the provisions of this act,
and such contracts be On file in his office, he
shall then issue warrant upon the county
treasurer, authorizing the payment of the
claim so allowed, and the amount shall be
charged to the Fort Smelling bridge fund.-
The question presented is upon the con-
struction of the above statute.
The statute creates tribunal, to-wit, the
board of bridge commissioners, with full
power and authority, and whose duty in the
first instance is to examine, pass upon and
allow or reject all claims and demands aris-
ing under contracts for the construction Of
said bridge.
The claim is to be first presented to the
commissioners, they examine it, and If ma
jority are satisfied that the demand is just
one, it is allowed and certified to by them.
The claim is then transmitted to the county
auditor, whose duty it is further to examine
it and compare it with the contract under
which it arises, and which is on file in this
Office. If he finds it to be correct and in &C
cordance with such contract, he issues war
rant upon the county treasurer authorizing
him to pay the claim on demand SO allowed.
1t is thus seen, that under the statute, the
only officers who are vested with any power
or discretion relative to allowing or auditing
the claim, are the bridge commissioners apd
the county auditor.
Upon them rests the duty and response
bility of determining the validity of tho de-
mand and whether or not it shall be paid.
All this seems to be quite plain and indeed 1
do not understand the respondent as contro-
verting it.
His position is that the claim itself, with
some evidence other than the the auditor 8
warrant that it has been duly allowed, should
be presented to him, not to enable him to
judge of its validity, but that he may have a
receipt or voucher showing that the claim
has been paid.
The answer to this is that the claim is
merged in and represented by the auditors
warrant, and the possession of that by the
treasurer, duly endorsed by the payee, is all
the evidence the statute contemplates, and
all the treasurer needs to show that he has
paid it.
The payment of the warrant is the pay
ment of the claim.
There is no more necessity for a special
voucher in this than in other cases of war
rants drawn upon the treasurer by the coun-
tyauditor.
Under the statute the bridge commission
ers and the county auditor are the legal Gus
todians of all documents pertaining to the
claim which precede the issuing of the war
rant. If the intention had been that the
treasurer should be furnished with such doc
uments or copies thereof, it is reasonable to
suppose that provision therefor would have
been made by the statute. But there is no
such provision, and as far as can see the
REALTORS have done all they can do to entitie
them to payment.
The fact that different course has been
pursued with other claims arising out of the
construction of this bridge is unimportant,
and the same is true of the fact stated in re-
spondent's answer, that two of the warrants
for this claim have been issued and present
ed to him, neither of which has been paid.
The three warrants bear the same num-
Der and sufficient evidence appears upon
each to apprise the treasurer that they
we're intended to represent the same claim,
and in addition to this the answer states