People ex rel. Alexander v. Swift
Before: Currey
Synopsis
This was an original proceeding commenced in the Supreme Court.
The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
By the Court,
Currey, J. The relator has applied for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to sign a warrant drawn by the Auditor of the City of Sacramento on the Treasurer of the city, directing him to pay to the relator five hundred and seventy-four dollars and thirty-eight cents out of the money in the Waterworks Fund. The amount for which the warrant was drawn was due the relator on the 2d of January, 1865, for materials furnished and work performed by Mm in fitting up the Police Court room in the waterworks building in Sacramento, of which he rendered an account to the Trustees, which, on the 9th of January, they examined1 and allowed as correct. The account was then examined and approved by the City Auditor, who indorsed on it his approval, and designated the same as payable out of the Waterworks Fund. (Laws 1863, p. 415.) [399]The warrant thus drawn was presented to the President of the Board of Trustees for his signature. He refused to sign it, and hence this application.
On the 2d of January, 1865, the Trustees passed an ordinance providing that: “ The sum of six hundred dollars is hereby appropriated from the Waterworks Fund to pay B. F. Alexander for work done finishing Police Court room in waterworks building.” ,
The respondent justifies his refusal to sign the warrant on two grounds. The first is, that the Board of Trustees had no power to pass the ordinance appropriating the money of the Waterworks Fund for the payment of the demand of the relator; and the second is, that the Auditor had no authority to designate the Waterworks Fund as that from which the warrant should be paid.
The Act to incorporate the City of Sacramento (Laws 1863, p. 415) confers the power in general terms upon the Board of Trustees to make by-laws and ordinances not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States or of the State of California. Then follows a particular enumeration of the powers of the Board of Trustees. Among these is the authority to make contracts in behalf of the city, and to examine and liquidate all accounts against the city. The same Act specifies in detail the duties of the principal officers of the corporation. It is made the duty of the President of the Board of Trustees to sign all warrants drawn upon the City Treasurer ; but before he shall sign any warrant, he shall ascertain from the books of the Auditor that there is sufficient money in the proper fund to pay the same. (Laws 1864, p. 484.)
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)