The White Pine news. [volume] (Treasure City, Nev.) 1868-1906, 1894-02-10
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
CONTINUED FROM EIRsT PAGE.]

On the 14th day of December 1893,
the relator VIM. Hayes, did commence
an action in the District Court in
White Pine county, by the filing of a
complaint and the issuance of sum-
mons thereon, against the said W. l..
Davis and each member of the Board
was made parties defendants and the
said summons was served on the said
Davis and each member of the Board,
on the 10Th day of December 1893.
On the 10th day of December 1893,
the Board of Commissioners met pur-
suant to the order of adjournment
made on the 4th, and, Notwithstanding
the filing of the objections, and the
commencement of the action in the
court by the relator, the Board of
Commissioners proceeded to consider
and allow, and did order the Auditor
of White Pine county to draw his war
rant against the general fund in the
county Treasury, for the sum of 49,
AL 50, in favor of w. l.. Davis.
Under the statute referred to it was
their bounden duty to have stayed fur
Their action until the question of the
ownership of the certificate of indebted
ness should have been determined by
the District Court Although the con-
stitution has provided that the 'Leg-
islature shall provide by law for the
election of Board of County Com
missioners in each county" 1t also
provides that such Commissioners shall
Jointly and Individually, perform such
duties as may be prescribed by law. 1t
is a tribunal with limited jurisdiction
and possessed only of quasi judicial
powers, and cannot proceed except in
strict accordance with the mode pro-
vided by statute. 1t has no right or
authority to adopt any other mode than
that provided for and pointed out by
the statute; it possessed no common
law jurisdiction or powers, the statute
is it's guide, and strict adherence to
it is essential. All the authorities are
to this effect, and there can be no
safety in any other rule.
If we were to hold that the Board
could act on the claim or demand I'M
der consideration after the objections
had been filed and suit commenced in
the District Court, it would defeat the
object of the law and the taxpayers
would have no protection whatever as
against the arbitrary action of the
Board. leave when once given to go
outside of the statute and make rules
and regulations to govern cases such
as the one under consideration would
be dangerous, not only to the letter
but the spirit of the law.
In reply to the argument of counsel
for respondent, the Board has no power
to pass upon the sufficiency of the
pleadings. The moment objections
were filed with the clerk to the allow
ance of the claim or demand against
the county, the Board should have
discontinued the hearings of the sub
iect matter, and the further consider
alton of the claim or demand must be
postponed for at least ten days; at the
expiration of the ten days it may pro-
coed to act upon the claim or demand,
unless suit has been commenced, and
if suit has been commenced and the
Board has been notified of that fact,
it cannot proceed to act on the claim
until the judgment of the court is filed
in it's office. The statute is too plain
to be misconstrued. The Board has
no discretion in the matter whatever.
If the contention of the counsel was to
prevail, what would be the result? A
taxpayer appears before it and files his
objections to the Board taking action
on claim or demand then under con-
consideration, and asks that the matter
be postponed for ten days to give him
an opportunity to test the legality or
ownership of the claim or demand in
court of competent jurisdiction. The
Board adjourns for twelve days. At
the expiration of ten days summons
is issued out of the District Court,
served on the Commissioners, to which
suit the members of the Board are
made parties defendants. After hear
ing read the complaint one of it's mem
bers makes a motion, the tenor of
which is that the action be disregarded
because the complaint does not state