Jacks v. Taylor

THE COURT.

This is a proceeding in

mandamus.

The petitioner in the court below will hereafter be referred to as the plaintiff, and the respondent in that court as the appellant.

This controversy was before this court on a previous occasion in a proceeding in which the same relief was sought, by the same plaintiff against the same defendant, the title of the

[96]

case being identical with this case. (See

Jacks

v.

Taylor,

24 Cal. App. 667, [142 Pac. 121].)

The facts of the controversy as they stood at the time that case was decided were fully stated in the opinion therein, and for those facts reference may be had thereto.

Since that decision further action by the board of supervisors of Monterey County has made new issues in the matter; the former case has apparently been abandoned, and upon the new issues raised in this action plaintiff had judgment in the superior court commanding the defendant to pay him $350 out of the county treasury. From this judgment the defendant prosecutes this appeal.

The facts additional to those recited in the former opinion are that on the going down of the

remittitur

in that case the claim of plaintiff was again presented to the board of supervisors, who thereupon adopted, after a preamble reciting that the employment upon which the claim was founded was necessary and for the benefit of the county, the following resolution: “Resolved, that this board hereby ratifies and approves the incurring of said expense by said grand jury as fully as if the same had been originally authorized by this board and to the full extent of the power of this board to constitute said claim a county charge.”

The authority of the board of supervisors to ratify the action of the grand jury by the adoption of this resolution is disputed by the defendant, and he also contends that the second filing of this claim with the clerk of the board of supervisors not having been made within one year of the date when the last item of the charge accrued, was barred by the provisions of section 4075 of the Political Code. That section provides that no account shall be passed by the board unless filed with the clerk within one year after the accrual of the last item thereof. This claim as filed with the clerk after the decision of the former case was the identical claim—the same paper indeed unchanged—which was filed with the clerk in the first instance, and we think the first filing thereof satisfied the requirements of the section cited, and that the'second filing did not change the nature of the claim.