Tilden v. Board of Supervisors
Before: Crockett, Wallace
Synopsis
Board op Supervisors.—A Board of Supervisors of a county, in allowing or disallowing a claim, exercise judicial functions.
Writ óp Mandate.—When a Board of Supervisors have acted on a claim, either by allowing or disallowing it, a writ of mandate will not be issued to reverse or review its judgment.
Idem.—Before such writ can be properly awarded the Board must refuse to act upon the claim, after it has obtained jurisdiction of it.
Idem.—A statute declaring that a Board of Supervisors shall not be sued in any action whatever, but that it may be proceeded against' by mandamus, does not change the essential nature or office of the writ itself.
Resolution op Board op Supervisors Revocable.—A resolution of a Board of Supervisors, after it has disallowed a claim, reciting that the services on which it is based have been performed by the claimant, but that the Board has doubts as to its legality, and directing the District Attorney to enter the appearance of the Board in any Court in which the claimant may commence an action to require the Board to allow the claim, which resolution is not agreed to or accepted by the claimant, is revocable at the pleasure of the Board.
Opinion — Wallace
By the Court, Wallace, J.: It is provided by the Act of April 25th, 1863, that the Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County “ shall not be sued in any action whatever,” but that they may be proceeded against by certiorari, mandamus, or injunction to prevent or compel their proceedings, “if the same can legally be prevented or compelled.”
Tilden presented a claim to the Board,.and it was disallowed. He then obtained a writ of mandamus from the Court below, commanding the Board to allow a specified . portion of the claim. From this judgment the Board bring this appeal.
In disallowing the claim the Board unquestionably acted in the exercise of judicial functions, and having arrived at a determination upon the matter pending before it, it is not to be turned round to some other judgment, not its own, through the instrumentality of the writ of mandamus. Before such a writ can be properly awarded, it must be made to appear that the Board refuses to perform some designated act which the law specially enjoins upon it as a duty. The complaint here is that it refuses to allow Tilden’s claim. But the answer is, that there is no duty resting on the Board to allow this particular claim, either in whole or in [71]part; that its only duty was to act upon it as a claim, and that that duty is as fully discharged (so far as a writ of mandamus can enforce it) by a rejection as it would have been by an allowance of the claim.
Our attention has been called to the fact that at the time at which the Board rejected the claim it also adopted the following resolution:
11 Resolved, Whereas, doubts exist in the minds of a majority of the Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County whether the claims against said county presented to said Board by M. C. Tilden, City Attorney, for fees of that office, are a legal charge against said county, and are desirous of having a legal decision by some Court of competent jurisdiction and authority to determine the same; and whereas, said Board and said City Attorney are desirous of testing said question in Court, with as little expense and delay as possible; with a view to that end, it is hereby admitted on the part of said county and said Board of Supervisors that the claims filed by said Tilden with the Clerk of said Board on the — day of”April, 1868, marked “A” and “B,” were presented in due form; that the labor therein charged for was performed by said Tilden, while City Attorney of Sacramento City, at the dates therein set forth, and that no part of said fees have been paid by the county or otherwise, and that the above claims have been rejected and disallowed by said Board; and the District Attorney is hereby directed to enter the appearance of this Board in any action or proceeding which said Tilden may commence in any Court, not a Court of a Justice of the Peace, for the purpose of requiring said Board to allow the said claims, and defend the action of this Board therein.”
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)