Case Name: In the matter of A. Doubleday, late Clerk, against The Supervisors of Broome County
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1824-02
Citations: 2 Cow. 533
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the matter of A. Doubleday, late Clerk, against The Supervisors of Broome County.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cowen's Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 533–535

Head Matter:
In the matter of A. Doubleday, late Clerk, against The Supervisors of Broome County.
Clerk of oyer and terminer and general sessions is entitled to compensation for engrossing and entering the minutes of these courts;
Which the supervisors should audit, mode of com-the contingent
Where services are rendered for the benefit of the county, and no specific pensation is provided, they should be audited by the supervisors as a part of charges of the county.
J. A. Collier, moved for a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue to be directed to the Supervisors .of Broome county, commanding them to allow the account of A. Doubleday, late Clerk of that county, for his services as Clerk of the sessions and oyer and terminer from September, 1817, to December, 1820, in engrossing the minutes of these courts, and copying and entering the same. He Tea¿ au affidavit, showing that this account had been presented to the board of Supervisors of that county, and disallowed on the ground that no compensation is allowable by law, for these services.
He said he should not detain the Court by any remarks upon the propriety of the claim, as the subject had already been discussed at the present term. (Yid. the next preceding case.)

Opinion:
Woodworth, J.
I think this case distinguishable from the last. The charge is not for services performed strictly as Clerk in court, but about recording the minutes which he had before officially taken. This business may be, and usually is done out of court, or in vacation. It is a benefit, and indeed necessary for the county, that this should be performed; and we have no evidence that the Legislature intended it should be done gratuitously. A similar application Avas made in October term, 1822, ex parte the Clerk of Westchester, and a rule granted to show cause.. I think, the case is within the principle laid down in Bright v. The Supervisors of Chenango, (18 John. 242,) that where the service is rendered specially for the benefit of the county, and no specific provision has been made for payment, they constitute a part of the contingent charges of the pounty, to be audited by the board of Supervisors. This rule was fully considered in the case cited ; and the Court intended that it should apply as broadly as the language in which it is expressed.
Savage, Ch. J. concurred.