The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1892-09-22
WENT ABOUT II WRONG.
{. A. Burr's Suit to Recover County
Money Paid Out.
The Supreme Court Decides Against
Him-lf the District Attorney is
Satisfied, Others Must Be.

The Supreme Court has filed in Dep
uty Clerk Govan's Office its decision in
the case of Z. A. Burr VS.. Board of Su-
pervisors of Sacramento County (re-
spondent). This was petition to the
Superior Court for writ of review for
the purpose of annulling an order of the
respondents allowing a claim of James
McClatchy 81 Co. against the county for
advertising. The lower court sustained
general demurrer to the petition, and
the petitioner declining to amend,
rendered judgment for respondent.
Whether or not the court erred in sus-
tanning the demurrer was the only ques-
ton presented for decision, says the Su-
preme Court.
The petition showed that the petitioner
was resident, citizen and taxpayer of
Sacramento County; that on or about the
1lth day of April, 1891, the respondent
heard and considered the claim of Nc
CATCHY Co. for 81, 567, for advertising,
and allowed it to the extent of SI,3l7;
that Immediately thereafter, on the same
DAY, McClatchy & Co. procured war
rant therefor from the County Auditor
and obtained the money on the warrant
from the County Treasurer; and that the
said claim or bill of the said firm, so heard,
considered and allowed by re-
spondent, was not duly nor otherwise
verified, was ever presented to or filed
with the clerk of said board"
1t is also stated that, because the claim
was not verified, the board had no iuris-
dlctIon TO consider or allow it; and "that
petitioner has no plain, speedy or ade-
quate remedy Of law" Further SAYS the
court:
"First-Conceding that the action of
the Board OF Supervisors was unauthor-
lzed and IN excess of its jurisdiction, and
that the money was wrongfully and
unlawtuIly obtained from the county
treasury, think the relief sought, and
all relief that could be given in this pro-
ceedlng, VIZ: the annulment of the order
OF the board allowing the claim, would
be OF no material or beneficial consequence
TO the petitioner, or TO the county. 1t
would not restore to the county treasury
the money obtained by McClatchy IE Co.
nor would the Judgment be comp ent
evidence III suit by the county =. ainst
McClatchy IL Co., the County Aud Tor or
the County Treasurer, as neither them
is party TO this proceeding. And, if an
actlon by the county against the indi-
vidual members of the board 90 be
maintained, on the facts stated in the
petition, the alleged fact that the claim f
McCIatchy IL Co. was not verified, and
all other facts necessary to prove the
nullity of the order of the board, may be
proved in such action by any evidence
which would be competent to prove them
III this proceeding. The law neither
does nor requires idle acts &C. c.. Sec
1851. court viii not exercise power
for no material or useful purpose (Hunt-
1ngton VS.. Nicoll, 3 John. 59St: and will
refuse a writ Of mandamus ii it appears
that 1t can have no beneficial effect. (Peo-
pie VS.. Supervisors, l. Barb. 222).
Second = remedy for the wrong
complained of is provided by Section S
of the County Government Act. as fol-
lows: Sec. s. Hereafter, whenever any
Board OF Supervisors shall, without
authority OF law, order any money paid
as salary, fees, or for any other purposes.
and such money shall have been actually
paid, the District Attorney of
such county is hereby empowered. and il
Is hereby made his duty, to institute
suit in the name of the county against
such person or persons to recover the
money so paid, and 20 per cent. damages
Tor the use thereof; and no order of the
Board OF supervisors therefor shall be
necessary to maintain such suit
"This,'; says the court, ''seems to he
plain, speedy and adequate remedy at
law, available to the petitioner. or to any
other taxpayer of the county, by COM
pldlliI ~ VIC DiSCIlCI Attorney; and, to
say the least, the interest which mere
taxpayer has in the matter does not en-
title him to bring suit in his own name
until after the District Attorney has re-
fused to perform the duty enioined upon
him by the eighth section of the County
Government Act.
1.-THE petition does not show that any
information of the alleged wrong has
been laid before the District Attorney.
nor that he has failed or refused to per-
form his duty. The judgment should be
affirmed"
The decision is given by Vanclief. and
concurred in by Justices Foote, Belcher.
Paterson, Garoutte and Mcfarland.