Case Name: RAY G. FALK, Respondent, v. FLEET F. STROTHER, Auditor, etc., Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1890-06-13
Citations: 84 Cal. 544
Docket Number: No. 12061
Parties: RAY G. FALK, Respondent, v. FLEET F. STROTHER, Auditor, etc., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 544–547

Head Matter:
[No. 12061.
In Bank.
June 13, 1890.]
RAY G. FALK, Respondent, v. FLEET F. STROTHER, Auditor, etc., Appellant.
Mandamus — Duty of County Auditor — Decision of Supervisors upon Appeal—San Francisco Consolidation Act.—Mandamus will lie to compel the county auditor of the city and county of San Francisco to audit and allow a demand upon the treasury of said city and county, after a decision of the supervisors allowing the demand has been rendered upon appeal from the refusal of the auditor to audit the same, taken pursuant to section 92 of article 6 of the Consolidation Act, the decision of the supervisors upon such appeal being expressly made final, so far as the auditing of the demand is concerned.
Id.—Ministerial Action of Auditor — Discretion.—The auditor, after such decision upon appeal, has a mere ministerial duty to perform, enjoined upon him by law, to audit and allow such demand, and can no longer exercise any discretion in the premises.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the ■ city and county of San Francisco, awarding a writ of mandate to the county auditor of said city and county.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court rendered in Department Two.
George Flournoy, Jr., Wilson & Wilson, and Philip G. Galpin, for Appellant.
Oliver P. Evans, and M. A. Edmonds, for Respondent.

Opinion:
McFarland, J.
After a full consideration of this cause upon hearing in Bank, we are satisfied with the decision of Department Two, and the opinion rendered by said Department. We see no escape from the conclusion there reached. Under section 92 of the Consolidation Act, the action of the board of supervisors on an appeal from the auditor is expressly made final, so far as the auditing of a demand is concerned. Upon the appeal, if the board approves and allows the demand, it is made the duty of the auditor to enter it "in the p>roper book, in like manner as other demands allowed by him, and an indorsement must be made of its having been so entered." And this is all that the judgment of the court below requires to be done. Whether or not the payment of the demand could be prevented or enforced at any other stage of its history, is a question which does not arise here.
Judgment affirmed.
Fox, J., Sharpstein, J., and Paterson, J., concurred.