Falk v. Strother
Before: Beatty, McFarland, Works
Synopsis
Mandamus — Duty of County Auditor — Decision of Supervisors upon Appeal—San Francisco Consolidation Act.—Mandamus will lie to compel the county auditor of the city and county of San Francisco to audit and allow a demand upon the treasury of said city and county, after a decision of the supervisors allowing the demand has been rendered upon appeal from the refusal of the auditor to audit the same, taken pursuant to section 92 of article 6 of the Consolidation Act, the decision of the supervisors upon such appeal being expressly made final, so far as the auditing of the demand is concerned.
Id.—Ministerial Action of Auditor — Discretion.—The auditor, after such decision upon appeal, has a mere ministerial duty to perform, enjoined upon him by law, to audit and allow such demand, and can no longer exercise any discretion in the premises.
Opinion — McFarland
McFarland, J. After a full consideration of this cause upon hearing in Bank, we are satisfied with the decision of Department Two, and the opinion rendered by said Department. We see no escape from the conclusion there reached. Under section 92 of the Consolidation Act, the action of the board of supervisors on an appeal from the auditor is expressly made final, so far as the auditing of a demand is concerned. Upon the appeal, if the board approves and allows the demand, it is made the duty of the auditor to enter it “in the p>roper book, in like manner as other demands allowed by him, and an indorsement must be made of its having been so entered.” And this is all that the judgment of the court below requires to be done. Whether or not the payment of the demand could be prevented or enforced at any other stage of its history, is a question which does not arise here.
Judgment affirmed.
Fox, J., Sharpstein, J., and Paterson, J., concurred.
Dissent — Worksbeatty
Works, J., and Beatty, C. J., dissented. The following is the opinion above referred to, rendered in Department Two on the 2d of December, 1889:— ■
■ Sharpstein, J.—This appeal is from a judgment directing a peremptory writ of mandate to issue out of the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, commanding the defendant, Fleet F. Strother, auditor of said city and county, to audit and allow the demand of the plaintiff, Ray G. Falk, for his salary as agent of the board of election commissioners for the detection of fraud and the scrutinizing of the registra[546]tion of voters, and appointment of election officers for the half-month of September, 1886. Said board of election commissioners approved and allowed h,is claim and demand for a half-month’s salary as agent aforesaid. Such demand was afterward presented to the defendant, auditor as aforesaid, and he refused to audit and allow the same. The plaintiff then appealed from the decision of defendant to the board of supervisors of said city and county, and said board approved and allowed said demand. Thereafter, plaintiff presented his said claim, so approved and allowed by said board of supervisors, to defendant, and requested him to allow and audit the same, and make the proper entries in the proper books in like manner as in other demands allowed by him, and to make the proper indorsement on the same.
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)