Albuquerque weekly citizen. (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1891-19??, 1904-02-27
OPINION m MlHDlMUS CASE
Gauss Of Frank ", CLANCY Versus
Board Of County Commissioners,
DOCUMENT sY IuDsE BAKER

HaaNH ~ ~ NAhNt ~ NNN WNHNIHNN
court Of BernaHllo county handed
down bis opinion In the case 81 the
Territery OF Now Mexico on relation
of Frank W. Clancy. district attorney.
W. The Board of County Commission.
en-. M which Mr Clancy sskod for o
writ " mandamus 90 compel that
hudy. thfough him To- bring suit
against Frank A. iiubholl. former sup.
srintendcnt of schools. and Hslavlo
vlFil the present incumbent OF that
once % recover certain sums Of mon.
~ paid 10 nubboll and vigiiallcgod 90
be- in excess OF the AMOUNTS due them.
Plaintiff alleges that The claims pre-.
tontod 10 tho board Tor allowance were
not properly verified and that they
were false and fraudulent an OF
which appeared upon tho face of tho
claims nresanted to the board of coun-
~ commissioner and by said hoest
allowed. and the amounts 90 allowed
we're paid By the county collector.
The claims presented. allowed and
paid to the claimants. Hubholl and
vigil. were Cor services alleged 10 have
been rendered as county suporintend.
ents. Tor visiting schools rho subject
matter OF me claims properly came o..
foro the board OF county commission.
ora. and u was their duty as such
hoard TO examine and settle and al.
low auch accounts. or diaallow them
az tho case might BE- such allow.
aaco by the board OF county commits.
sioucrn. wa anal. so Far hs tho claim.
ant vac concerned. unlos- appealed
from by him lsoc 900. e. 81. 1877
The examining. settling and allowing
~ accounts hy a board OF county com.
miasioncra is q matter Of the exercise
of Judgment and discretion. imposed
by law upon the board OF county com
mlsglonors. and o. a quasi judicial
act This proposition is conceded by
ALL
Two court said
Two questions present themselves.
FIRST VIII a writ o. mandamus he
10 compel a board OF county commits.
slonera % exercise their official dis.
crUtlon IN a given way Second; Ia
40 account once passed upon and al
lowed with an the facts before the
board. conclusive. so far az a recovery
against the claimant b. concerned. for
money received by claimant In excess
90 the amount allowed him by law?
A. to the first question tfo court
SAID
Can the district court compel the
bOard of county commissioners by
mandamua. "a use such discretion la
given wayf " @ cannot. then could
the court after the hoard had cxercls-
"a its discretion and judgment. com.
pei the board 20 reacind ita action and
make q contrary doclsion3 Tho bring
ing % a suit 30 recover che money
from claimants. paid on an order OF
tho board OF county commissioners.
would be- equivalent 90 resembling the
allowance. and then dlaallowing the
claims n the money had not been
actually paid on the order Of the
board. could the court order the board
20 roselnd rs order OF allowance. and
order Il % disallow tho claimsy To
90 that, the court would have 90 AFRO
cato 81 itself tho power 10 say whon
claims against the county snail be-
and whom thoy shall NOT b.. allowed
This would be- a usurpatiOn OF author.
w and power not contemplated BY the
Legislators when tho law for the regu-
lation and management Of counties
was passed Tho board Of county
commissioners u vested BY law with
tho D0wor and duty OF the manage.
mont Of tho county Affairs. Among
other things. Il 90 entrusted with the
power and discretion TO bring suits for
the county when IN the Judgment OF
tho board of commissioners suits
should be- brought II o. certainly
necessary for tho BOARD 20 exercise
sound Judgment and discretion IN do
torminlng whether or not toe county
shall embark in litigation. The want
% aiod Judgment In tho bringing OF
law sulta has been tho down fall OF
many a nnancior Il ig a discretion
AIRY actlon and the result OF moro or
loas Investigation and weighing ofmat.
toFa on the part OF the board OF county
commissioners On determining whclh.
or or not a suit shall be- brought BY the
county, lt goes with ut saying that
10 the court can by mandamua say
when the board Of county commission.
era shall bring suit. Il can with equal
proprIely say when d shall not bring
a suit This would De county govern.
mont ~ mandamus and injunction.
The court quotes from two cases.
ono RENDERED. by the supreme court OF
Illinois and the other from California
which 10 usa bis terms we're on "all
oup" with the proposition hoforo
him. and many decisions we're cited
DO the opinion
ih conclusion the court stated, ac-
cordlng 10 the law. be would deny the
writ Of mandamua prayed tor.
Tho opinion rendered % quite
lengthy an. bat lack of spaco forbida
700 publishing the whole opinion
RUSSlA'S NEW