Court Opinion

ID: 7191251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 16:56:55.94408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:16:11.678328
License: Public Domain

On the Merits.
It seems that a large number of the warrants tendered in payment, were signed by the “ chief clerk ” and “ accepted ” by the “ treasurer ” of the Police Board — and issued early in the year 1869, for fiscal year 'of 1868. The only law then in existence authorizing the issuance of •these warrants was the act creating the Board of Metropolitan Police, -page eighty-five acts of 1868. By its thirtieth section it requires said warrants to be “ signed by the president and any two other members of the board, attested by the chief clerk.”
A board, such as that of the police, is a mere creature of the law, possessing no powers not conferred by statute, and when, without authority by legislative enactment to issue a warrant or note, all such paper when issued, is null in the hands of whomsoever it falls. 5 Denio, 517; 4 Denio, 520; McClure vs. Bennett, 1 Black, f. 189, and Mears vs. Graham, 8 ib., 144. A fortiori, where the form of warrant is-prescribed, any other *790kind of warrant is null and void; no paper, except that specially permitted, Can possess the least effect. Little Rock vs. State Bank, 3 Eng. (Ark.) 227; Damon vs. Grauly, 2 Pick. 345; Randall vs. Vanbechten, 19 Johns, 60; 7 Cranch. 229; 2 ib., 127.
The warrants therefore issued by the chief clerk and accepted by the treasurer, were not issued as required by law, and are not such warrants as the law requires the city to receive for license-taxes.
The decree of the court below was therefore erroneous, so far as it-compelled the Administrator to accept these warrants in payment. They are of numbers and amounts following:
No. 1969..............'.....$91 67
2807................... 91 66
1970..................-. 83 33
1945.................... 83 33
1946................... 83 33
1944................... 83 33
1953................... 83 33
2294................... 72 33
1974................... 83'33
1981................... 72 33
190................... 45 12
669...................' 13 92
302........... 100 00
140........ 30 25
303....... -.100 00
572...................200 00
556...................100 00
304...................100 00
530................... 15 00
6923................... 67 20
6924.................'.. 77 96
671................... 14 40
508...................300 00
567...................300 00
562.......‘............300 00
559...................100 00
558...................100 00
553...................100 00
No. 1959.....:.............$91 67'
1971................... 83 3$
1965................... 83 33.
1942................... 83 33-
1976................... 83 33-
2812................... 77 77
1984................... 72 33-
1962................... 83 33:
1978................... 83 33:
6721................... 83 33-
191................... 45 14
670................... 12 00
120................... 66 66
21................... 32 00'
300...................100 00
557...................100 00
124................. 4 00)
5867.......■..........79 33'
6922................... 77 96-
6924................... 80 65
672................... 13 92.
666.................... 15 00'
573...................200 00‘
580...................200 00*
7878....................250 00-
560...................100 00'
'555...................100 00-
It is therefore ordered adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the court below be so amended as to include among the rejected warrants,.those above described, and as thus amended that said judgment be affirmed — relators paying costs of appeal and defendants those o£ the court below.