Beals v. Evans

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1858Published

Before: Baldwin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a county may assign its choses in action without public auction and that a special fund created by statute for the payment of a county debt may be used to pay that debt in installments rather than requiring the full amount to be collected first.

Issues

Whether a county has the authority to assign its choses in action without a public auction.
Whether a special fund created for debt liquidation must be held in its entirety before any portion can be disbursed to the creditor.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We do not find any restriction on the power of a county to exchange its credits for its debts, or for money, if it so desires, and can find any one to contract with it on these terms.”

“The fund is a special fund, to be collected for the express purpose of paying this debt, and to be held as a trust-fund for this exclusive object.”

Synopsis

A county may assign and transfer a warrant drawn in its favor by another county on its treasurer, so as to invest the holder with the right to demand payment thereon.

It was not intended by the provisions of the ninth section of the Act of 1855, “ to create a board of supervisors in the counties of this State, and to define their duties and powers,” which requires the property belonging to the county to be sold at public auction, that this provision should apply to cJioses in action.

Ebr was it the intention of the Legislature, by the provisions of the ninth section of the Act of April 27, 1855, “ to provide for the ascertainment of the indebtedness of Calaveras county, prior to the organization of Amador county; and to provide for the payment of that portion due from Amador county to the county of Calaveras,” or by the general laws on the subject of payment of the indebtedness of counties, that the whole special fund raised by that act should remain with the treasurer until all of it should be needed for the payment of that indebtedness in one sum.

Payment may be demanded of the treasurer of Amador county, by the holders of warrants issued in pursuance of that act, at any time when there are funds in the hands of the treasurer to meet the same, and a receipt, and corresponding credit endorsed on the warrant, will be sufficient to protect the county and the officer making the payment.

Baldwin, J., delivered the opinion of the Court Terry, C. J., concurring.

This was a proceeding by the relator Beals, claiming that he is the assignee of the county of Calaveras, of a debt evidenced by a warrant for $26,517 32. This claim was for the amount of indebtedness due from the county of Amador to Calaveras county, as ascertained by the commissioners appointed for that purpose, and to be paid out of a fund created under an act of the Legislature, approved April 27, 1855, “to provide for the ascertainment of the indebtedness of Calaveras county prior to the organization of Amador county, and to provide for the payment of that portion due from Amador county to Calaveras county.” The petitioner states further, that he demanded payment of this sum which was refused; and that, at the time of the demand, there was in the treasury of Amador county $14,000, set apart under the aforesaid act of April, 1855, subject to the payment of the warrant. It appears that the warrant was assigned by Calaveras county to plaintiff on a consideration equivalent to so much money.

[460]There are some other averments in the petition, which is not very artificially drawn; but these do not, as they are stated, amount to anything upon which an issue could be taken.

The case was tried before the Judge of the Fifth District, who found the facts alleged in the petition to be true, but dismissed the proceeding. From this order, the appeal is taken.

It is objected by the respondents that the relator has no title to the warrant, because the county could only sell its property at public auction, after notice, etc. But this provision has no application to such a case as this. The act never intended to provide for the sale of the choses in action of a county, at public outcry. And we do not find any restriction on the power of a county to exchange its credits for its debts, or for money, if it so desires, and can find any one to contract with it on these terms. If the county of Calaveras is satisfied with this arrangement, we do not see that Amador has any right to complain.

The next and more serious objection to giving the relator the relief he seeks for the $14,000, is founded on the ninth section of the act of 1855. (Acts 1855, p. 167.) That section is as follows:

“ The board of supervisors of Amador county are hereby authorized and required to assess a special tax of thirty cents on the hundred dollars on all taxable property of said county, to create a ‘ Sinking Fund ’ for the liquidation of said debt; said tax to be collected at the time and in the same manner as other county taxes; and said supervisors are required to set apart from the ‘ General Fund ’ of said county a sum which, added to the ‘ Special Fund/ shall be equal in amount to the one-half of the entire ‘ General Fund ’ of said county; which ‘ fund ’ the Treasurer of Amador county is required to set apart and reserve for the payment of said indebtedness of Amador county to Calaveras county, when ascertained in the manner above prescribed; which said ‘ fund ’ shall continue until said indebtedness be declared, and until an amount equal to said indebtedness shall be set apart and reserved by said treasurer, as aforesaid.”

Beals v. Evans

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief