Knox v. Woods

Burnett, J., after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the Court—Field. J., concurring. By the provisions of the third, sixth, seventh, thirteenth, and twenty-seventh sections of the act of 1855, to establish common schools, the school-moneys distributed to the various counties of this State, from the State school-fund, are specially set apart, in the hands of the county treasurers, for the payment of the salaries of qualified teachers. And, by the provisions of the second section of the Consolidation Act, the fund remains a special fund for the same purpose, in the hands of the treasurer of the city and county of San Francisco.

The first question. raised by the record is, whether a claim audited but not paid, before the Consolidation Act took effect, and according to the then existing law, must be again audited [546]in accordance with the provisions of that act, before the treasurer can be required to pay the same. .

The eighty-second section of the Consolidation Act provides, that “no payment can be made from the treasury, or out of the public funds of said city and county, unless the same be specifically authorized by this act, nor unless the demand which is paid be duly audited, as in this act provided, and that must appear upon the face of it.” The mode provided for auditing demands against the treasury, by the act, is very different from that existing undeb previous acts.

This language, although general and comprehensive, must be construed with reference to the general interest of the act. And when we do this, it would seem that it was not the intention of the Legislature to require that' to be done over again, which had already been well done. The provision was intended to apply to all claims to be audited after the act took effect, and no claims were required to bo again audited, which had been properly audited before. When the claims of the plaintiff were properly audited, they became conclusive against the county, and it could not have been the intention of the Legislature to again subject them to the discretion of other officers, by whom they might have been rejected. Unless the language of the act was so clear, as to admit of no doubt, we could not be justified in supposing the Legislature intended any such unreasonable consequences.

The question has been raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties, whether the fund received in each year shall be specialty paid only to the teachers during that year. There is nothing specific in the act establishing common schools, in reference to this question.