The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1904-09-21

any or these claims.
It is made their duty, by the Act of
1904 to issue and sell bonds Of their
county, not to exceed ten thousand
dollars, for the purposea of pying the
apportioned Indebtedness and there
fore, the acts to be performed by them
are purely ministerial in character
and if the Indebtedness has been ap-
portioned aud they have the money in
hand, it is clearly their duty to pay
| it.
Just at this point, the respondents
contend that in any event, lnasmuch
as it is manifest that the money in
hand will not meet the claims OF
Sumte- county and of Kershaw county
together, they cannot be required tc
pay either in full to the detriment Of
the other, but that at most they car
only apportion the money in hand tc
these two claims.
There is no authority given in the
Act to pro-rate the money to these
claims. IF both claims had been put on
file and proven, and..the commissioners
had apportioned and>paid each claim
pro- rate, then their return to this
effect, while it might not have been
in accordance with the Act, would
have shown that they did not have
the power to pay the claim, had the
| rule been issued against them to COM
pel them to pay this claim in full
! but they are not in this position, fol
| while they have notice of the claim
from Kershaw county which they say
will amount to at least four and per-
haps Eve thousand dollars, yet they
say that this amount has not been fix
| ed. I do not find authority for this
position.
From the Syllabus in Hunter VS..
Mobley, 26 S. c., page 1872, it would
seem that they would have the right
to pro rate in case Of deficiency OF
funds, but an examination of the case
does not lead to this conclusion.
In that case, the sheriff of Lancas-
ter county endeavored to obtain a
preference for dieting prisoners,
claiming that under the language OF
the Act OF the Legislature. be had
a right to such preference. The right
! was denied because it appeared that
he had no such preference and that
4 UASI0 WS1C uO 1QA0S La od0 - vas J
applicable to such claim.
The Court says: eff at any time
there were funds in the hands of the
county treasurer applicable to the
claims due the sheriff, then his
remedy was by mandamus to compel
the county commissioners to issue
checks or their payment
The case of Mclaughlin against the
County Commissioners, S. G., page
375, was a petition to the Supreme
Court by Mrs. Mclaughlin for man
damus to compel the county commits
sioneTs of Charleston county to draw a
check upon the county treasurer for
the amount of her claims therein
specified against the county OF Char
lesion This check was to be drawn
against the funds raised by special
tax and specially appropriated by law
for the payment of certain audited
accounts against the county, held bA
her, "By an Act of Legislature,
approved December 22nd, 1915, (15
Stat. 6l0, Sec. Z, authority was con.
ferred on the county commissioners OF
Charleston to levy three and one
half (315) mills. one half (15) mill Of
which, If so much be necessary, shall
be set apart and paid by the county
treasurer in settlement of the audited
claims of NJ. A. Mclaughlin. The
tax in question has been levied and
moneys realized therefrom are nov in
the hands of the county treasurer. y
Mrs. Mclaughlin demanded of the
county commissioners. checks on the
county treasurer for the amount sub
isct to. payment to her under the
terms Of the law, and this demand
was refused.
The Court say s: "Tbe question up
on mandamus is, whether specific
ministerial duty has been imposed by
law to perform the act which the re.
lator seeks to compel If such ap-
pears to be the case, and her demand
for compulsory performance is in sup
nort of q recognizable right chat has
been denied, then the nandamus
ought to CO."
1.-THE first point of objection on the
part of county commissioners is that
the5 are net by the said section OF the
said Act to do anything in regard to
the claim of the relator, and therefore
the mandamus prayed for against
them ought not TO be ordered to is
sue When an Act directs money to
be paid from q public treasury, but
does not specify the mode of making
PAYMENT, it is to be regarded as ln-
tending that such payment, as to mat
ters of form, shall be made in con-
formity to the general regulations OF
law respecting payments, OF such class
of character. Such an Act imposes
specific obligation upon all officers
having duties to perform necessary
for the making of such payment.
under the general laws relating to
that subject, upon the familiar prin-
ciple that a legislative mandate im-
plies the requisite means OF its per-
formance, if in the general compass
of, the powers of the officers by whom
the mandate ought to be executed. -
The Court goes on to say, further:
"The county commissioners, in pre-
senting this proposition, connect it
with the statement Of the fact that an
action is pending relating to the same
claims and undecided; but this fact
can have no bearing on the question