The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1886-06-09
:. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
County Claims-Exclusive Jhrisdic'
ton of County Commissioners
MandRmus. ..

Mandamus. .
Jennings ct al. Us. Abbevize County.
The plaintiffs brought this action against
the defendant to recover the balance due
them on a ntract with the county commits
sioners OF the county to build O bridge In said
refused to pay, alleging that the plaintiffs had
not compiled with the contract. &c. The
claim had been approved by the county com
missioners and payment in part made; but,
finding defect, as they allege, in the work,
the commissioners refused TO issue checks for
the balance Of the price agreed upon. The de-
fendant demurred on the ground principally
that the Court or Common Pleas has not .ju-
risdiction TO hear and determine an original
action upon O county claim. The Circuit
Judge overruled the demurrers and sent the
case to the jury, who found q verdict for the
plaintiffs to the extent Of tho whole balance
Of the price agreed upon. The defendant aps
pea!ed.
This is the first case In which the question
er as under @ the constit1tioh Of 1855 and the laws
since passed, the board Of county commits
sioners have exclusive Jurisdiction to audit
and provide payment for that class OF de-
mssioners as representing the county, are
called County claims" subject only 10 the
right of appeal; or whether the Court Of Com.
mon Pleas may take original Jurisdiction OF
such claims, and hear and determine them,
rejecting or giving Judgment against the coun-
ty as In ordinary cases.
The Court, after careful consideration of
the provisions Of the Constitution and the
Acts OF the Legislature on the subject, decide
that an original action In the Court of Com
mon Pleas upon an ordinary county claim is
not only unauthorized by the system provid..
ed for the settlement of county claims, but
as in that case the judgment obtained against
the county could not.be enforced.
The Legislature has made special provision
that certain actions of q particular character
defective "repairs on highways" the destruc--
tion Of houses by mobs, &c.-nray be brought
directly against the county in the Court OF
Common Pleas. (See General Statutes, Sec
t9ns lOS 2Sm and dd,ios9 2,2 T., .,,. oose cou,d
not claim the benefit Of the express statutory
provision made for the payment of judgments
recovered In the special cases OF tort referred
to. 1t would therefore be necessary for them
to go back to the county commissioners to OBJ
tain warrant on the county treasurer for the
payment of the Judgment, rs the treasurer Is
positively forbidden under penalties to pay
ment or not, except upon the warrant Of the
county commissioners In case such warrant
was refused, they might apply for. a urit ,ot
nandan,us to test the question whether the
dy audited this claim, are not bound to issue
a warrant for its payment, and that right
they had. as clearly as now. before they conn
menced this action In the Court Of Common
Pleas. Moses on Mandamus; 104; Boyce VS..
Supervisorsof Cayuga County, 20 Barb.i 9l
The People vs. The Supervisors Of Chenango,
Seld., 31S; State eX rel. Marshall VS.: Startling,
10 s. c., 2G6 in re Conahts Claims, 81 =. c.; SO4
dismissed, without prejudice TO the plaintiffs
to enforce their claim by, other proper pro-
ceeding. OBI Opinion NJ 5stS by MCGOWAN, Al.
Messrs. Perrin Cothran, for appellants.
Messrs. L. B. Gary, Graydon, Ior respond
ents.