People ex rel. S.F. Gas Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors of S.F.
Before: Baldwin
Synopsis
A mandamus directing a Board of Supervisors to proceed and audit certain accounts of the relator, does not necessarily require the Board to allow the accounts ; such Board have a discretion in respect to their action in this regard, though compelled to act on the subject matter of the claim; such writ does not control or prescribe the mode, or determine the result of their action.
The mandamus, as granted, commands the Supervisors “ to audit the accounts of the relator set forth in the affidavit of J. Gr. Eastland,” &c.
The term audited in reference to demands on the treasury, is to be understood as meaning “ passed upon and finally allowed.” Consolidation Act, 1856, §83.
The Legislature at the session of 1858, passed an Act for the Relief of the San Francisco Gas Company, (Stat. 1858, p. 46) which gives to the Supervisors the only power they have in relation to the claims of the Gas Company. Sec. 1 authorizes them to adjust, audit, allow and cause to be paid, &e., the claims in question.
Nothing can be more evident than that the Legislature intended to give the Supervisors power to determine how much was due the San Francisco Gas Company, on any bill presented, and never did intend to take away their power to examine and reject any claim that was not due.
The power to adjust is the power to consider how much, if any thing, is due the plaintiffs.
[442]d. It is admitted that if it were true that the Supervisors had refused to adjust, audit and allow the claim of the Gas Company, according to law, the Court might properly issue mandamus to put them in motion, and compel them to act.
But the Supervisors have not refused. They deny it on oath, and the relator does not attempt to prove their allegation.
3d. The only point in controversy is, whether the Supervisors can be compelled by mandamus to approve a demand of the San Francisco Gas Company for $39,601170°0, when there is no proof offered them that that sum is due.
The Supervisors maintain that no Court can, by mandamus, take away from them the right to to examine this account, and “ adjust ” it by ascertaining how much is due on it. They require, of course, some proofs or vouchers to show the amount of indebtedness, and have a right to a reasonable time for their examination.
But the Gas Company, not content with the pound of flesh to which it is entitled by law, undertakes to obtain a mandamus, which shall compel the Supervisors to allow their demand for the exact sum of $39,601 ¿q, without examination or proof, and when they dispute their indebtedness to that amount, and deprive them of their right to a jury trial to ascertain the amount.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)