The producers news. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1918-1937, 1920-01-02
'D8iin Case
Continued from last week)

Continued from last week.
An examination of the bill filed b,
. the defendant will disclose that the
j.! number of ballots furnished is moi
T. stated, and it is impossible to deter.
mine from the bill filed, which was
allowed by the Board, the number of
Z ballots actually furnished by the de-
tendant. do not believe that the
Board had any authority to allow this
: claim for this reason, and that their
acton In that respect, and for that
reason, was without authority of law.
Section 2945 provides as follows:
NO account must be allowed
by the board unless the same is
made out in separate items, the
nature Of each item stated, and
be verified by affidavit showing
that the account is Just and Who'll
~ unpaid, and if it is for official
service tor which no specified
fees are fixed by law, the time
actually and NECESSARILY devoted
TO such service must be present.
ed within a year after the last
item accrued"
The claim presented to the board
must be itemized so as to set forth
the nature of the claim, it's amount.
and the facts on which it is based,
with sufficient clearness to enable the
board to determine therefo,m that it
Is valid claim against the county,
and since the claim filed in this case
does not set forth the number of bal
lots furnished it would seem to be
impossible to determine therefrom
the number of ballots furnished. II
Cyc. $50; County v. Town of Green
vile (Wisc.), As N. w. 1890; Uzzell
v. Lunney (Coo.), 104 Pac. 945; Ellis
v: Bingham County Qdaho), 60 Pac.
Enough must be alleged in the &C.
count to show the county is liable for
the demand: II Cyc. $50; Allen v.
Board, 116 Pac. ITS.
1t is seriously and earnestly con-
tended by the defendant Dolin that
since the Board of County Commits
sloners allowed the claim in the sum
OF $7812.0O that the Board must have
made a determination or finding as
to the number of ballots furnished,
set aside this finding before this &C.
ton can be Commended, or before an
action OF this character may be main
tanned against the said Board of
County Commissioners, either to en-
join the payment of said warrant, or
to secure its cancellations; that the
Board of County Commissioners, in
determining the number of ballots so
furnished for said election were act
ng in quasi-judicial capacity, and
therefore, their decision determining
he number of ballots furnished can
lot be attacked collaterally, and that
his proceeding is necessarily a COL
ateral attack upon such finding by
he Board.
The act of the Board in allowing
he claim is void because the claim
tself does not set forth any number a
# ballots, and therefore it must have
'een impossible for the Board to
ave made any determination at all I
S to any number of ballots furnished
nd since the action of the Board of
county Commissioners in allowing E
he payment Of said bill is void, the '
termination may be attacked COL
aterally. State v. Court (Mont.) 179
'ac. 1888. r. =
Said Section 1880, heretofore quot s
d in this, opinion, provides that it is r
Re duty Of the County Attorney to
ommence an action of this character
hen moneys have been illegally paid Il,
Y the Board, or when the Board have n
rdered the payment of moneys H. n
galiy. The complaint alleges that a II
'1tain number of ballots were fur -
shed, and that certain sum was
lowed by the Board for such ballots,
hese facts, if true, show that the "
oard exceeded it's authority in al d;
wing the payment of said claim and W
ordering warrant drawn there r!
T. Counsel's contention that it vi
ust be presumed that the Board TO
ust have had a determination as to =:
e number of ballots before order M
z them paid cannot be maintained,
cause there is nothing to- show I
neither or not the Board ever made L.
" determination at all as to the
mber of ballots furnished.
The claim was no doubt allowed BY &c
e Board Of County Commissioners 90 %
on the theory that the claimant Nc;
Is entitled to the maximum rate per M M
eclnct, ana payment for 1000 bal ~ ~
S per party for each precinct, even ~,
ough he furnished less than 1000 ~ ~
lots for such precinct. This is the ":
cory upefa which the claim was
'd. as shown by the agreed state TN I'll
mt of f1xs herein. Tie
Since ALI of the parties agree that sp1l
more than 131 1892 ballots were
'nished, t is clear, therefore, that to
), Board had authority to pay for SUI
n number only, and that. any sum OF
Tered paid in excess of that which ag'
,uld be paid for 131 1892 ballots was TIN
;hout the jurisdiction of the Board, mil
the at Of the Board is void to '
It extent. ty,
\ Board Of County Commissioners pro
mot act in excess of their authori- due
and if they ~dd.'act in excess of chill
If authority such act is void. Paci- eril
County v. Willapa Harbor Pub can
ing Company, 1853 Pac. 361 tho
ASH; Honey v. Board (Kans,) 10 lay
:. 1913. per
n the case of Pacific County v. trol
'llshing Co., the court said as fol- pur
s: crir
"The Council and the commits cou
iorerS find their authority to scie
ind their principals in the stat T
to. and rtnllSf ovorc;co tho Do,,.o~. ,><