County of El Dorado v. Reed

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1858Published

Before: Terry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a settlement of accounts made by a Board of Supervisors at a special meeting is a nullity if the business to be transacted was not specified in the order calling the meeting, as required by statute to ensure public oversight.

Issues

Whether the acts of a Board of Supervisors at a special meeting are valid when the business transacted was not specified in the meeting notice.
Whether the settlement of a County Treasurer's accounts by a Board of Supervisors can be challenged collaterally when the Board lacked jurisdiction to act.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In order to give the amplest opportunity to the District Attorney, or citizens who desire to do so, to contest the allowance of improper demands against the Public Treasury, the business of the Supervisors is required to be transacted at the regular meetings provided by law; or if at special meetings, public notice must be given of the business to be so transacted, and unless such notice be given, the acts of the Supervisors are a nullity.”

Synopsis

The Board of Supervisors of a County cannot settle with the County Treasurer at a special meeting of such Board, unless they have first given public notice of such meeting, and specified in such notice that such business will be transacted.

In order to give the amplest opportunity to the District Attorney, or citizens who desire to do so, to contest the allowance of improper demands against the Public Treasury, the business of the Supervisors is required to be transacted at the regular meetings required by law; or if at special meetings, public notice must be given of the business to be so transacted; and unless such notice be given, the acts of the Supervisors are a nullity.

We insist that the Court erred in this case, by reviewing the action of the Board of Supervisors.

1st. Because the law clothed them with power to settle with the Treasurer, audit his accounts, and make him his proper allowances. That the exercise of that power was a judicial act, and an error committed by them in its exercise could not be enquired into collaterally. Wood’s Digest, p. 694, sec. 9.

2d. The only case in which the acts of Supervisors could be questioned collaterally, is where the record discloses that they acted without jurisdiction. In this case their record discloses no such fact, because they are authorized to audit and ascertain the state of accounts between the Treasurer and the County, and in this instance were in the exercise of that power, and part of their allowances are admitted to be legal charges.

3d. The action of the Board is in the nature of a judgment, and like a judgment, when questioned collaterally, must be respected as a whole, or disregarded entirely (being a nullity). In this case their action cannot be treated as a nullity, nor did the Court so treat it, for he credits Reed with all the allowances but one. People v. Sup. of El Dorado Co., 8 Cal. 58.

[1314]th. The Court erred in thus reviewing collaterally these allowances, allowing some and disregarding others of them; he should have admitted the settlement as a whole, or disregarded it entirely.

5th. An erroneous action of the Board, where they have jurisdiction, cannot be reviewed collaterally, but the error must be corrected by a writ of certiorari: until so corrected it is conclusive. 2 Sanford, 472; 8 Cal. 58.

6th. In making the final settlement of the Treasurer, the Auditor is clothed with no judicial functions, but must be governed by the allowances of the Board; to give him additional power would be to make him an appellate judicial tribunal to review their proceedings at discretion.

Brumfield and Attorney General for Respondent.

Cited Wood’s Digest, 693, sec. 5, also pp. 694, 714, 65; 5 Gil-man’s Rep. 232; 3 Scarn. Rep. 357; Wood’s Digest, 696.

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

County of El Dorado v. Reed

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief