Sacramento daily record-union., 1889-09-30

paid by the Treasurer of the county, on war
rants duly drawn upon him, can the county
recover the money back?
The Board of supervisors has the powers ex-
pressed in Section Is of the County Government
Act supra.
The Board of Supervisors, in passing upon a
claim, acts judicially. There can be no question
about this being the law. (El Dorado county
VS.. Elstner, Is Cal, 149; Tilden VS.. Board of
Supervisors, Al Cal, 79)
| In the last case the Court say: "The Board,
| in passing on claim, acts iudicially. The
allowance or rejection of claim is the deter
! mination of the matter submitted TO the Board,
and 1t occupies the same relation to claim
| that Judgment does to an action.
1.-The judgment and discretion of the Board OF
Supervisors in relation to matter not Illegal is
I not open to review by the Courts" Horn
blower vs. Duden, 50 Cal 669; Colusa coun y
vs.. De Jarnett, SIS Cal, 373.)
When certain facts are presented to Court
or Board exercising Judicial functions there
is only one judgment or determination that can
! legally be rendered ormade; and ifthe judgment
| or order which is rendered or made is not
such as the law demanded, it is merely
erroneous-assuming that the Court or Board
4 had acquired jurisdiction and had competent
| authority to render or make the Judgment or
| order-not because the facts were misappre-
| hended, or the law misunderstood or doubted,
II cannot be said that the matter presented for
determination has not been decided. 1t will
| not be contended that the judgment of Court
rendered pro f0rTnd because of doubts enter
tanned as to the law applicable to the case, and
/
pellate Court, is not a judgment. In this case
/ the Board doubted whether the petitioner s
claim was legally chargeable against the county.
| (Tilden VS.. Sacramento county, Al Cal, 73)
| 1t being conceded that the Board in passing
| upon claim acts Judicially, can claim which
/ has been so passed upon, allowed and paid,
although illegal, be recovered by the county?
Hereafter, when any Board of Supervisors
| shall, without any authority of law order any
money paid as salary, fees or any other pur-
poses. and such money shall have been actually
/ 10 Inf rNf,
| hereby empowered to bring suit. (Sec. s, County
| Coy. Act)
| The above section gives the District Attorney
power to bring suit in the name of the county
/ without an order of the Board of Supervisors.
! take 1t that Section 8, County Government
Act, created no new rights or remedies. 1t gives
the power to the District Attorney when the
| Board of Supervisors shall without authority
or law order any money paid, etc, without the
authorization of the Board. to Immediately be-
gin an action against the parties who have re.
| celVed the money. There is no question but
| that, before the passage OF this Act, the Board
| could order the District Attorney to bring suit
| against parties under similar circumstances In
| both cases the suit would have to be brought in
| the name of the county and the only difference
| arises in whom the authority hes to order the
| commencement of the action. The Board NAV
still order the District Attorney TO bring suit in
| the name of the county in all cases where it
| could before the passage of Section s. County
| Government Act, but now the district Attorney
need not wait for such authorization.
l ", T
pose of this argument that the oficer presented
| to the Board his claim against the county That
| an examination was had of said claim. That
/ it was duly audited settled allowed and maid
| and that in each instance under misappre-
| hension of the law, although with full know
| ledge of the facts an illegal charge was made
/ against the county.
The leading Case upon this subject is Super
| yisors of Onondago VS.. Briggs, Denio, pp. %.
Bronson. Judge. The Court say
1T is said that the taxation is not conclusive
Il lxxhAy hoo 4ffanr ALL ol,.
authorized by the fee bill. and the reason as.
signed is, that when the officer goes beyond the
fee bill he has no Jurisdiction. If the argument
be carefully analyzed it will, think, be found
| to come to this: when the officer decides right
| the decision IS conclusive, but when he de-
/ cides wrong the decision is good for nothing
he has Jurisdiction TO decide right, but
no jurisdiction to decide wrong With great
| respect | must be permitted to say that
| this reasoning is utterly falacious 1t would
not only oveIturn the authority taxing officers
but 1t would upset the jurisdiction of every
other officer and court in the State.
| The power to decide at all necessarily carries
| with it the power to decide wrong as well as
| right. The taxing officers allowed nothing
| where there were not plausible grounds for
making the allowance. Each OF the accounts
was accompanied by an affidavit the
proof prescribed and allowed by law,
| that all the services therein charged had
been actually performed Now, although
| as to some of the charges, there can be
| no doubt that the taxing of the officers was
wrong stu II was but an error ofjudgment and
not defect of jurisdiction. Taxing officers
| have been appointed for the very purpose
| among others of determining whether the
| charges come within the statute allowing fees
| That is part OF their jurisdiction. To say that
| they may decide the question and yet that the
determination is void when they fall into error
Is legal absurdity. Whatever may have been
tnelr motlves, the facts that the services were
actually performed, that there was a claure in
| the fee bill under which they m ight be allowed
and that there was no published decision, nor
| even dictum against making the allow
ance are sufficient, and much more than suf-
ficient to show that the officers had authority 10
determine whether the chargee should be al
lowed or not.
mistake of fact, but of law, and it is fully set
tied that proof of such a mistake will not enable
the party to recover back money which he has
voluntarily paid under a claim of right
THE law will never do SO absurd a thing as to
hold that money which has been paid under an
adjudication that it is the party's due can be re-
| covered back To take money in pursuance of
criminal act. different doctrine would set
the law in array against itself" Supervisors of
Onondaga VS.. Briggs, DEMO 26 Also EmeIson
VS.. State, l6 Ind 29)
Chief Justice Field renders the following de-
cision: ''The solution of the second question
depends upon the character OF the payments
wnelner lhey were voluntary or made under
The rule is at this day well settled, that
moneys voluntarily paid upon a claim of right
with full knowledge of all the facts, cannot be
recovered back, merely because the party at the
time of payment was ignorant of or mistook the
law as to his liability.
''The illegality of the demand paid constitutes
OF ltsei no ground for relief. There must be
some compulsion or coercion attending its asser.
ton, which controls the conduct of the party
making the payment. 1t is the Compulson or
coercion under with the party is supposed to
act which gives him a right to relief If he
voluntarily pay an illt gal demand knowing it
10 be illegal, he is of course entitled to no con-
siderstion, and If he voluntarily pay such de-
mand in ignorance or Misrepresentation of the
tdW respecting its validity he is in no better DO
sition, for it would be against the highest policu 10
permit transactions to be opened upon grounds
OF this character"
Every man, as said Lord Ellenborough in
Bllbie VS.. lumley, East, 49, must be taken to
be cognizant of the lGtO; otherwise there is no
saying to what extent the excuse of ignorance
might be carried. IL would be urged in almost
every case (Fullam VS.. Down 6 ESP DC. Bris-
ban VS.. Daeres, Taupt., 14i)
Relief against mistakes in LaW is refused upon
the principle, Said the Supreme Court of ew
York in Clark VS.. butcher, Q Cowen 67i, "that
in judgment of law there rs no mistake eye,y
man being held, for the wisest reason, to be
against which the party seeks relief is his own
voluntary act and he must abide by H. In that
case 1t was held after an elaborate examination
OF the English authorities. that where money is
paid with foil knowledge of the facts and cir
cumstances upon which it is demanded, or
with the means of such knowledge 1t cannot be
recovered back upon the ground that the party
supposed he was bound in EdtU to pay it when in
truth he was not. He shall not be permitted
said the Court, to allege his ignorance of the
law, ana 1t shall be considered a voluntary
payment. (Leading case, 20 Am. Dec, III;
Brumagim VS.. Tillinghast, IS Cal, 265, citing
Preston VS.. Boston, IL Pick, Z; Boston and Sand.
wich Glass Company vs. The City of Boston.
Meteali is9; Chase VS. Dwinal, Greenleaf, lS9;
Smith VS. inhabitants of Redfield, q Me-, l45;
Mays VS.. Cincinnati, Ohio State, 26S Robinson
VS.. City Council of Charle ston, Rich, 3l7;
Mowatt ct al. VS. Wight. Wend, $50; Wyman
VS. Farensworth. Barb, $40; Elliott VS. Sart-
wout 10 Pet, l3S; Mayor, etc. of Baltimore VS.
Lefierman, Gill. AS.
In the latter case the Court says: az think
that where man demands money of another
as matter of right, and that other with full
knowledge of the facts upon which the demand
Is founded has paid sum, he can never re-
cover back the sum he has so voluntariIy paid
IL may be that upon a further view, he NAV
form different opinion of the law, and it NAV
be his subsequent opinion may be the correct
one. II we were TO hold otherwise many in
conveniences may arise; there are many doubt
tu questions of law; when they arise the party
has an option either TO litigate the question or
70 submit TO the demsnd and pay the money /
think that by submitting to the demand he that
pays the money gives 1t to the person to whom
he pays IL and makes 1t his own, and closes the
transaction. a Gill, 421)
1T is settled law that one who voluntarily
pays money with fun knowledge or means or
knowledge of all faatS itho,,t frard