Andrews v. Pratt
Before: Niles
Synopsis
Boards of Supervisors are Guardians of County Property.— Boards of Supervisors are the guardians of the property interests of their respective counties, and in that relation occupy a position of trust, and are bound to the same measure of good faith towards the county which is required of an ordinary trustee towards his cestui que trust, or an agent towards his principal.
Pay of a Supervisor.—A Supervisor is not entitled to any remuneration, for services rendered the county as a Supervisor, except his per diem and mileage, as fixed by law.
Idem.—If a Board of Supervisors sell the stock owned by the county in a railroad corporation, in pursuance of a law authorizing such Board to do so, its individual members are not entitled to any extra pay for the services thus rendered.
Enjoining Payment of County Warrants.—A Court of equity, on the complaint of a taxpayer, will enjoin the payment of and cancel county warrants illegally drawn on the Treasurer by order of the Board of Supervisors.
Certiorari to a Board of Supervisors.—Certiorari will not lie to set aside the proceedings of a Board of Supervisors, in allowing an illegal claim against the county.
Parties Defendant in Equity.—Where several persons have been jointly concerned in a series of fraudulent acts, they may be united as defendants in a suit to annul the fraudulent acts, although the gains they realize by such acts are several.
By the Court, Niles, J.: This suit was brought to procure the cancellation of three warrants for the sum of fifteen hundred dollars each, drawn [316]in favor of the defendants Pratt, Van Vactor, and Kinder, severally, against the General Fund of the County of Placer.
Prom the complaint and answer, we adduce the following facts:
The plaintiff was a resident of the County of Placer. The defendants Pratt, Van Vactor, and Kinder, constituted the Board of Supervisors, and the defendant Hollenbeck was the County Treasurer. The county had been the owner of two thousand five hundred shares of the stock of the Central Pacific Railroad Company. By an Act of the Legislature of April 4th, 1870, the Supervisors were authorized “to sell and dispose of any or all of the stock held or owned by said county in the Central Pacific Railroad Company, upon such terms and ^conditions as shall to said Board of Supervisors, to be declared by a unanimous vote thereof) be deemed expedient, and for the best interests of said county.” Pursuant to this authority, the Supervisors negotiated a sale of the stock to 1). 0. Mills & Co., for the sum of two hundred and * fifty thousand dollars, and by resolution authorized the Chairman, Van Vactor, to proceed to Sacramento and transfer the stock to the purchasers, and the sale was thus completed. Van Vactor presented the following written claim against the county:
“ County of Placer to Wm. Van Vactor, Dr.:
“Por services in negotiating and selling stock of Placer County in the Central Pacific Railroad, and expenses, and attorney’s fees, fifteen hundred dollars. Auburn, May 6th, 1870.”
Each of the other Supervisors presented a similar claim for the same amount. These claims were allowed at a regular meeting of the Board, and the warrants drawn, which the plaintiff seeks to have canceled.
1. The Act of April 4th, 1870, authorizing the Board of Supervisors to dispose of the railroad stock of the county, [317]created no new office and imposed no new duties upon the Board. It placed some restrictions upon their general powers to sell, and provided the manner of its exercise in this particular transaction. But the sale in pursuance of the statute was the act of the. Board as such, and in the line of its ordinary official duties.
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)