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

rector. The Court held that the statutes
of 1850 and 1881 were repuynant TO the
provisions of the Constitution upon the sub
lect OF compensation, and that was made the
principal question to be decided. The Court
held that there was no tribunal or Board before
whom the claim could be audited, the Legis-
lature having failed to provide such Board
tribunal; consequently, there having been no
Board or tribunal before whom defendants
claim could be audited. and no one to order the
cla1m paid, its payment was in no sense a vol
untary payment, and the State was not pre-
cluded from recovering the money. The Court
at the close af the decision says: .At all events
the receipt OF 1t is not voluntary payment
which pieeiudes the people of the State from
recovering it back" Thereby indirectly adj
mittlng that had the money been paid upon
warrant duly drawn, after the claim had been
duly audited and ordered paid by a proper
tribunal, that 1t could not have been recovered
back. The Court cites Hargan VS.. Palmer, .
barn and CTes., 729, and Clinton VS.. Strong, 9
John, 369.
upon by the Court in People VS.. Chapman
should with the general current of
authorities that moneys voluntarily paid by any
one not under duress or force or through fraud,
with null knowledge of the facts, through
back.
JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF BOARDS OF ST.
PERvIsoRs.
When the Board OF Supervisors of a county
allows bill they act as quasi judicial body
and their allowance and settlement of a claim
is an adjudication thereof which is conclusive
(Colusa county VS.. De Jarnett, 55 Cal. S75.)
II Is not true that the Board of Supervisors
performs precisely the same acts that Court
would, were the claim prosecuted before It.
They must hear testimony, find the facts con-
strue and apply the law to those facts, in order
parties before them and pronounce Judgment
TOR or against one or the other.
Are these not judicial acts?
The word supervisors" when applied to
0ftcerS. Tba
duties OF the ofhcers are various and manifold.
sometimes judicial, at others legislative and
executive: From the necessity of the case it
would be impossible to reconcile them to any
particular head, and therefore in matters re-
lating to the police and fiscal regulations of the
counties they are allowed to perform
them by law without any nice dis elimination
into the exact character of powers conferred
lPeople VS.. Supervisors of FL Dorado county s
Cal, 62) The Board of Supervisors is special
tribunal, with mixed powers-admiuistrati
legislative and Judicial. Its judgments or or
ders cannot be attacked in collateral way or
made any more than the. JUDGMENTS of courts
OF record, no matter whether it acted upon suf-
fcient or insufficient proof, regularly or irregu-
larly. waugh VS.. Chauncey II Cal 12 Robin
son VS.. Board.of Supervisors of Sacramento.)
The decision OF County Commissioners that
claim against county is valid is conclusive
262)
Under the Code, an action cannot be main
tanned against party 10 recover a claim which
has been allowed by the County Commissioners
Marshall Co. vs. Jackson Co, 36 Ala 636)
Supposing, that Sections 1898 and 1901 of the
Political Code to have been repealed by impli-
cation by Sections 2l1 and 23l of the County
Government Act, were the Supervisors acting
within the scope of their powers IN passing
upon claims presented for service rendered
under said sections. there being no decision or
opinion or dictum deciding them to be invalid
or repealed? There is no contention that the
services were not performed, as required by
Sections nd -nf DoIEt,
Code, nor that the compensation asked for and
received by the Assessor was not a reason
able one, nor that the purpose of the Board
was to follow the law in paying his demand
nor that the Board was acting under duress
when they allowed the claims. The contention
that Sections 1898 and 1901 were actually re-
pealed is open to much question, for as has
been suggested, there have been various amend
ments made TO both the Political Code and the
County Government Act by every Legislature
since the passage of the County Government
Act in 1883. And in the face of the fact that
said Sections 1898 and 1901 appear upon the face
of the Political Code as the law, the Legislature
has never attempted to expressly repeal said
sections, and until these matters shall have
been decided by a competent tribunal will re-
main as the apparent law of the land I am
credibly informed that all of the Boards of Su-
perVisors in this State, without exception, have
been allowing claims against the various coun-
ties similar to the one here under discussion
So that the Supervisors of Sacramento were only
carrying out what they had every reason to be-
ing these claims under what appeared to be to
them the law. In Miller vs. Dunn. 70 CAL, 46S,
the Court says: "The phrase without express
authority of law was used in view of the Judi.
cial and legislative history of the State and vet
1t is by no means clear that it was intended to
prevent the payment of Just claim, expressly
authorized by an Act in due form duly passed
and approved, and within the scope of lawful
legislation, simply because after the work was
done the Court may upon great deliberation and
searching investigation declare the Act for some
reason, such as defect in title, wrongful dee
CATION of power and unconstitutional.
After thorough investigation of these ques-
tlons feel constrained TO say that if the Board
of Supervisors had refused payment in each of
these cases that it could not have been en-
forced against them by suit brought against
the county. And even if the Board had al
lowed the claims at any time before their pay
ment, Notwithstanding the allowance, the
county by injunction or otherwise might have
defended and restrained payment thereof.
(Sec. 5o4, Dillon on Nun. Cor
In conclusion ] will say l believe that If
the officers had asked for extra deputies to per-
form the service required of them, that the
Board would have replied that they being
allowed compensation by Sections 1898 and
allowed extra deputies, at that time there
being no reason TO believe that said sections
had been repealed. On the other hand, if the
Board had believed that Sections 1893 and
1901 were repealed they undoubtedly would
have allowed the officers extra deputies and
paid them TO have performed such labor under
Section 2li of the County Government Act
have, believe, fully stated the law bearing
upon the cases submitted t. you, aud il is but
proper for me to say in conclusion that in my
Judgment the county cannot successful Y main-
tain the suits referred to. Respectfully SUBJ
mitted, ELwooD BaUNER,
District Attorney, Sacramento county.
--------->