Hyperlawhypertext legal database People ex rel. Barrows v. Board of Supervisors 23 How. Pr. 395

← Cases

People ex rel. Barrows v. Board of Supervisors

23 How. Pr. 395 Court SUPREME COURT. Decision date 1862-07-03 English

Delivered by James C. Smith, Justice.

Contents

Majority

p. 395
SUPREME COURT.
The People ex rel. Thomas Barrows and another agt. The Board of Supervisors of Monroe County.

Headnote

The provisions of chapter 83, Laws of 1861, apply to all claims, whatever their form, which are required by law to be presented to boards of supervisors to be audited by them.
Monroe Special Term,
July 3, 1862.
Demurrer to return to alternative mandamus.
The relators recovered two judgments in the supreme court, which were duly entered and docketed in Monroe county clerk’s office, for costs, in actions brought in the name of the people of the state of New York, against relators, to recover the penalty of a recognizance taken by the police justice of the city of Rochester, under the provisions of the statute relating to “ disorderly persons.” The judgments were presented to said board for audit, at an annual session of the board in 1861, which refused to audit the same. The return to the alternative writ by said board set up as a reason why it did not audit the judgments, that they were not presented for audit to said board until after the time limited by chapter 83, Session Laws 1861—to which the relators demurred generally.
C. Jordan, for relators.
E. S. Otis, for defendants.

I overrule the demurrer in this case, on the ground that the relators have not presented their claim to the board of supervisors, to be audited by them, as required by the provisions of chapter 83, Laws 1861, p. 158.

In view of the obvious design of that act, to prevent protracted sessions of the boards of supervisors, I think that its provisions apply to all claims, whatever their form,

p. 396
which are required by law to be presented to the boards to be audited by them.

There is no doubt but that the claim of the relators is of that nature, notwithstanding it may be clearly a legal charge upon the county, (a point which I do not decide,) and the supervisors may have no discretion as to its amount. (1 R. S., 386, § 3, sub. 15; id., § 4; 20 Barb., 294 ; 23 Barb., 338 ; 1 Seld., 67.)

Judgment for defendants, with costs.