McBride v. Newlin

COOPER, C.

The court sustained a demurrer to the complaint, and judgment was entered for defendants. This appeal is from the judgment and for the purpose of reviewing the order-sustaining the demurrer.

The action was brought by plaintiff, as a taxpayer, for the purpose of enjoining the board of supervisors of Los Angeles county from allowing or ordering a warrant drawn, the auditor

[37]

of the county from drawing the same, and the treasurer from paying any such warrant for a claim of defendants Pridham and Faulkner for printing a supplemental register of the county, which claim for printing is alleged to be illegal for certain reasons not necessary to be discussed in this opinion. The demurrer was properly sustained. The case is clearly within the rule laid down in

Linden v. Case,

46 Cal. 172, and

Merriam v. Board of Supervisors,

72 Cal. 519.

The board of supervisors, in passing upon a claim, act in $

quasi

judicial capacity.

(Colusa County v. De Jarnett,

55 Cal. 375;

McFarland v. McCowen,

98 Cal. 331.) In the latter case the plaintiff presented an itemized bill against the county for services alleged to have been performed as constable, and the board of supervisors allowed the claim and ordered the warrant drawn. The defendant, as auditor, refused to pay the warrant and attempted to show that plaintiff never in fact performed any services for the county. This court held the adjudication of the board of supervisors, as to the fact of whether or not the services had been performed, final and conclusive. In the opinion it is said: “The claim of respondent for fees in payment of services as constable was one which the board of supervisors had jurisdiction to hear and determine.” The board of supervisors, being the body clothed with