The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-05-19

Judge Hiles delivered his opinion in
the matter of the application of the
Civic Federation Tor writ of man
date TO compel the board of county
commissioners to investigate and pay
back $S,972.91 to the petitioner, which
the members OF the federation ad-
Vanced to eX-County Attorney White
more to aid in the prosecution of the
furniture Doodle cases. His honor denied
the petition for the writ and in the
opinion says in part: 1t is asserted by
the applicants for the writ that the
board of county commissioners rejected
the claim, not because it was or is not
a just claim against the county, but
because the statute of the state OF
Utah, an act entitled an act to vail
date and provide for the payment by
the counties of this state of claims
for moneys heretofore advanced for
expenses incurred by public officers in
execution of the laws of the territory
and state of Utah, approved March II,
1897 and under authority of which
this claim was presented to the board,
was by the board deemed unconsti-
tutional and that the rejection of the
claim upon that ground makes a case
where a writ of mandate will lie against
the board and that it is a case which
must be excepted from the general rule.
The minutes of the board, and its
files, which relate to this matter, do
not show the ground upon which they
rejected the claim, but in the absence
of such showing it must be regarded as
having been rejected on grounds which
are common grounds for rejection of
claims against the county which are
rejected by the board after preSenta-
ton TO and consideration by them.
1T has always been held that man
daInus is not the proper remedy for
the enforcement of claim against the
county, which has been presented to
the board of commissioners of the
county and by them rejected. The
board in allowing or disallowing the
claim, exercises a judicial function, and
when it is exercising this function, a
writ of mandate win not be issued to
reverse or review its judgment.
In this case the claim has been pre-
sented to the board and by them re-
jected The petitioners here have,
therefore, a plain and adequate rem
edy lat law by suit against the county
for the amount of their claim, and
therefore, upon that ground, a writ
cannot issue.
The cases cited by the petitioners
in support of their application, not
ably, the New York cases, do not seem
to be in point Those were cases where
the legislature had by legislative enact
ment fixed the liability of the county
and had directed payment of the debt
upon its presentation to and allowance
by the commissioners. and the board
of commissioners, Notwithstanding the
legislative enactment, had refused to
allow the claim.
1T is not at all certain in this case
that the claim which was presented to
the board is a claim which, by a prior
Interpretation and application of the
act of March IL, 1897, can be said to
be covered by its provisions; but, how
ever that may be, I think it clear that
the remedy which the plaintiffs or pc
titioners have is a suit upon the re-
jected claim.
81 think it not necessary to decide
whether the act of March II, 1897, be-
fore referred to, is constitutional.
The application for a writ is denied"