H. S. Crocker Co. v. County of Lake

California Court of Appeal Apr 14, 1941 No. Civ. No. 6541Published

Before: Tuttle

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a superior court has the authority under Section 3714 of the Political Code to order a county to pay a judgment for a validly incurred obligation, even if the original budget appropriation for that purpose was exhausted.

Issues

Whether a county is liable for a validly incurred contract obligation when the specific budget fund is exhausted.
Whether a superior court has the authority to order a county to pay a judgment for a claim that exceeds budget appropriations under Section 3714 of the Political Code.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The exhausting of a fund after a valid obligation has been incurred by the subsequent misappropriation of the money, regardless of the persons to whom it is paid, may not defeat the claimant’s right to a judgment”

“The construction of subdivision 5 of section 3714, supra, by the court in the two cases cited above, compels the conclusion that the Superior Court of Lake County did have the power to make the order in question”

TUTTLE, J. This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of respondent in a mandamus proceeding.

H. S. Crocker Company, Inc., respondent, recovered a judgment in the amount of $3,427.33, against the County of Lake, and commenced this mandamus proceeding to compel payment of such judgment. A judgment and peremptory writ of mandate, filed July 30, 1940, ordered and directed that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Lake, the Treasurer of the County of Lake, and the Auditor of the County of Lake, pay to respondent the amount of said judgment mentioned above.

Respondent’s cause of action arose out of a contract entered into between respondent and the County of Lake. The date of the contract, the circumstances existing at the time of the execution thereof, and the subsequent proceedings of the parties are stated as follows:

(1) December 31, 1929, respondent, Crocker Company, Inc., was awarded a furniture contract by the County of Lake in the amount of $7,429.84. There was ample money in “Capital Outlay Courthouse Fund”, of the County Budget, from which this charge was to be paid, to meet all obligations which had then been incurred against that fund.

(2) This contract was fully performed, and on April 19, 1930, respondent was paid $5,572.40, on account. This left a balance of $1857.46.

(3) Subsequent to December 31, 1929, and prior to respondent’s presentation on June 11, 1930, of its claim for the balance of $1857.46, the “Capital Outlay Courthouse Fund” was exhausted, except for the sum of $7.94. Between December 31, 1929, and June 11, 1930, respondent was paid from this same fund the sum of $1664.22, in addition to the $5,572.40 paid to it on the furniture contract. The sum of $1664.22 was paid to respondent in satisfaction of other independent claims.

(4) On June 11, 1930, respondent presented its claim for the balance of $1857.46, due on the furniture contract, to the Board of Supervisors of Lake County. This claim was disallowed by the Board of Supervisors, upon the ground that the “Capital Outlay Courthouse Fund” was at that time exhausted by payments on other obligations which were in excess of the budget appropriations for the fiscal year, which ended June 30, 1930.

[189](5) Respondent commenced suit against said county after disallowance of its claim for $1857.46, and on the assumption that the claim was not a liability against the county, except for the $7.94 remaining in the fund, under the provisions of section 3714, subdivision 5 of the Political Code, the claim was disallowed to the extent of $1849.52. Respondent appealed from that judgment, and on appeal the County of Lake contended:

H. S. Crocker Co. v. County of Lake

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief