Newark post., 1915-03-10

Such dppfoNal ueSlgnatedS upon the ldSe
OF the bill. O
GALL BILLS so APPROVED
SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE
TREASURER OF THE COUNCIL OF
NEWARK WHO SHALL ISSUE HIS
WARRANT IN PAYMENT THERE
FOR, and such warrant shall be signed
by the chairman of the Sewer Commits
sion as aforesaid
In view of the clear provisions of the
statute above quoted, there can be no
doubt that the legislature intended to
make the Sewer Commissioners, or ma
jority of them, the judges of the cor
rectness of all bills for labor performed
and materials furnished by any employee
or contractor.
In the case of Mccormick VS.. Fisher, )
Penn. 273, the court said: "We think
that in this case the power is vested ex-
clusively in the Council to decide and
award the contract, and that the func-
toins of the Mayor in signing and affix-
ing the seal of the city are merely minis
terial. The Mayor is not to undertake
to decide between parties what is legal
or illegal.
The defendant insists that it was not
the intention of the statute that the Com
mission should be vested with such power
because it would be incompatible with the
financial interests and welfare of the
town. We cannot agree with this conten-
ton. 1t seems to the court that no indi-
vidual, officer or tribunal could be as
capable of protecting the town in re-
spect to bills presented for labor and
materials, as the Commission that award
ell the contract, supervised the work, and
: fixed the remuneration therefor.
The court are clearly of the opinion
that it was the duty of the defendant to
issue a warrant for the payment of the
relator's bill and that a peremptory writ
should be issued to compel the perform
ance of that duty.
Having arrived at this conclusion it is
O not necessary to pass upon other ques-
! toins argued before the court.
= The conclusion we have reached is, we
think, amply supported by reason and
authority. Indeed, no case to the con
trary has been cited, which is at all in
=, point.
In Bank VS.. Lexington, "A Mo 1O4, it
. was held that the city had power under
:, its charter to issue warrants in payment
= for work and labor done on a culvert OF
for services rendered by an engineer
= and that it constitutes no defense to an
:, action on a city warrant that there is nc
:, money in the city treasury to pay it.
The court in State V. Irwin, 134 Pac
4S4, said: "We are wholly at loss to
- understand how the fact that there may
not be at present, in the general fund OF
' the city, sufficient money to pay such
warrant can have any bearing upon the
. question of the legality OF its issuance
Vt there being no law prohibiting the is
suance of such warrant because of tn.
h"ht VI hiohes W pay ib- MS Nao G
It mandamus to compel the Mayor to ISSUE
II a warrant.
The syllabus in People V. Lippincott
lie - III. SIS, is, in part, as follows:
elf the state has received the ser
N vices or property of an individual unde,
'e contract, there would seem to be n,
l,Jn hot h, ltlt, IF h,
y auditor to draw warrant for the sun
l. due, and of the treasurer to countersigl
IL it and deliver it to the person entitled t.
e, receive it, whether there be any none,
$ in the treasury or not. Hence it is no
sufficient answer to a petition for a man
l. damus to compel the auditor to issu,
e, such warrant, to say that there is M
te money in the treasury with which to pa,
N it if issued.
er And in People " Secy. of State, So II
90, the court said:
f. elf the petition was alone for wri
T. to compel the payment of the money b,
he the treasurer, then the answer would be
e. bar to the relief, but the prayer is, tina
ne the auditor issue, and the treasurer coun
- tersign and pay, warrant for tn
n amount petitioner is entitled to receive
ce This (the issuance Of the wal
Of arnt) the law at least requires, and ais
as that it be paid when funds are provide
for the purpose. If there is no none
he in the treasury for the payment of
ry should be paid when there are funds
In State V. Hoffman, 35 Ohio st. 43i
1d the syllabus states: