People ex rel. Raun & Plant v. Bd. of Supervisors of El Dorado Cty.

Upon the facts in this case we make the following points :

1st. That the Board of Supervisors has allowed the account; that the same was a proper subject of adjudication by it, and its decision in the premises is final and conclusive.

2d. That at the time of the services for which said account was presented, there was no law requiring them to be performed by the Auditor; therefore that section 51 of the Fee Bill is not applicable to them. That the interests of the county required that they should be performed, and that it was competent for the Supervisors to have the same done; that to do this, they must procure the services of the Auditor; for such services the Auditor shall he allowed a compensation. The Board has made such allowance, and as of right and according to law it could do; and its decision as to the amount allowed is not the subject of review. (See Brady v. The Supervisors, 2 Sanford’s Reports, page 473; directly in point.)

As to the intervenor, he is the innocent holder of the warrant; that the same is a negotiable paper, and although not collectable in the hands of Note ware, it is in the hands of the present holder.

Sanderson & Hewes for Respondents.

The proceedings were irregular, null and void :

1st. Because said allowance was made without there having been [172]first presented to the Board an account or bill of particulars showing the nature and amount of the services for which compensation was claimed, as is required by law and the practice of the Board.

2d. Because there was no “ examination or settlement,” on the part of the Board, of the amount to which said Auditor was entitled, if any, for these pretended services, as required by law.

3d. Because the order does not specify the amount for which the Auditor was authorized to draw his warrant, but leaves the same to be ascertained and fixed by the Auditor himself; a proceeding alike opposed to law and common sense.

4th. Because the pretended services for which said allowance was made are not “ legally chargeable against the county.”

5th. Because in passing said order and making said allowance the Board acted without color of law, and exceeded its jurisdiction.