against the county~on his.~claim is the same whenthe~.claim has been re'jectedby the county auditor as it is when the claim hasp~been rejected by the ~omis$ioners ' ~court in counties which.have no ;auditor;~'Falls County v. Bdzeman, supra;'Andersonv. Ashe, supra. Inthe light of the above authorities, hit is clearthat' theeplaintiff inerror had a right to Pile'suitto establish its~claim'against the .'county when't~e.'Budi~or~'refused~ tomapprove':: the ~~~ts~wiIl"n~t'~dompel'b~~~alldamus~ anauditor to approve'such a claim. Anderson v: Ashe, supra. It seems to this court that the county auditoracted wisely in refusing to approve the claim of plaintiff in ,error"under,the.factq as disc~losedby the'record, a part only of .which.wasset out above. Such facts show~a total disregard for the law with respect to the purchase.of supplies-for the county, and by refusing to a~pprovethe claim, plaintiff in error was relegated to the courts where all partiesrights may be Hon. Sam Durris, Pag'e5 (S-V-Q) .'
determined and allowed in accordance with all of the facts developed on.a~hearing. The Irelief sought in this proceeding .is a'mandamus'only, and we are not here..concerned.nor called upon to determine-the rights error'to any otherrelief. Togrant the mandamus,in this suit would,have the.effect of forcingFannin~ county to pay,a'.claim,whichhad not been;approvedby anyone.with'power..to.allow,9the same, sin& such cl~aim' was rejected auditor and thencommissioners' courthad:no ~jUris- : diction .to allow it, and their attempted approval was a nullity." In'order.:to:~insure the county against,the unlawful expenditure of.county,funds,'%~the Legislature has provided in Article"1661 that all-warrants except warrants for jury ser-- vice'mu~,F~'~~~ounter~ig~ed.'.~jjr.the County Auditor.. Therefore, any warrant not.countersignedl.bythe County Auditor is invalid. :, Y" Such'invalid warrant may not be cashed ~by the County Depository and.the cashing'of an in&lid'warrantby the Depository'would~constitute negligence :on the part of'~ the County Depository as,. a~matterof~ law; Padgett vi Young County ,204 S.W. 1046 (Tex.Civ..App.1918, error dism. 111 Tex. 96, 229 S.W. 459). In view ~of the foregoing, we answer your questions specifically as follows: 1. The provisions .of Article 1660 and.1661, Vernon's Civil Statutes, are mandatory. 2. The payment of claims, bills or accounts which'have not been examined and approved by the County Auditor constitutes unlawful expenditure of county funds.
. 3. The dounty Depository is not authorized to cash warrants other than'warrants for jury service which have not been countersigned by the County Auditor. 4: Moneys paid'out on claims, bills, or accounts which have not been approved by the County Auditor may be recovered by the county. /
5. Moneys paid out on warrants which have not been countersigned by the County Auditor may be recovered. Ron. Sam Rurris, Page 6 (S-149)
SUMMARY
!Ihe.provisionsof Articles 1660 and 1661 Vernon's Civil Statutes, are mandatory and require the payment of.claims, bills or accounts against the county~to be examined and approved by the County Auditor and require that all warrants on the County Treasurer except warrants for jury service to be countersigned by the County Auditor. Moneys paid out on claims, bills or accounts which have not been approved by the County Auditor and moneys paid out on warrants which have not been countersigned~by the County Auditor may be recoverd.