People ex rel. Smith v. Board of Sup'rs

In November, 1908, the Commissioner of Agriculture laid a quarantine upon Erie county and certain adjoining counties against the contagious and infectious animal disease known as “foot and mouth disease,” and called upon the relator, the sheriff of Erie county, to enforce said quarantine and furnish the necessary special deputy sheriffs to assist in the enforcement of the orders and regulations of the Commissioner, as the Commissioner had the right to do under the agricultural law (Raws 1893, p. 670, c. 338, § 65, as amended by Laws 1900, p. 206, c. 118, § 2, and Laws 1901, p. 857, c. 321, § 1). Pursuant to such declaration and order, the sheriff did appoint deputy sheriffs for that purpose; no other official duties being performed by them. One of such deputies was John L. Grobe. The reasonable charge for the services so performed by him was $3 a day, which was paid by the sheriff, the relator. The sheriff presented his claim therefor to the auditor of the county, who submitted the same to the board of supervisors; but the board declined and refused to audit the same, upon the ground that it was not a charge against the County, but a state charge. Thereafter the relator presented his claim to the Comptroller of the state, who refused to audit the same upon the ground that it was not a state charge, but a county charge. Thereupon the sheriff applied for a peremptory, writ of mandamus requiring the board of supervisors to audit his claim. The application was denied at Special Term, upon the ground that the claim was a charge against the state, and not against the county. From the order denying the application, this appeal is taken.

The sheriff receives a stated annual salary and certain fees, besides his necessary disbursements. Laws 1891, p. 268, c. 108; Matter of Beck, 157 N. Y. 151 , 52 N. E. 5 . That he was required to thus aid the Commissioner of Agriculture and appoint deputies, and that the services so rendered were necessary and the amount paid therefor reasonable, is not controverted. The sheriff is therefore entitled to be reimbursed for the moneys so expended by him, and if a county charge it must be paid by the county. Section 240 of the county law (1 Con-sol. Laws, p. 432) defines what are county charges; among others, money necessarily expended by any county officer in executing the duties of his office in cases in which no specific compensation for such services is provided by law (subdivision 9). Section 185 of the county law provides, however, that when a sheriff shall be required by any" statute to perform any service in behalf of the people of this state, and for their benefit, which shall not be made chargeable by law to his county, or to some officer, body, or person, his account for such services shall be audited by the Comptroller and paid out of the state treasury. Section 70b of the agricultural law (Laws 1893, p. 655, c. 338), as added by Laws 1901, p. 863, c. 321, as it was when the services were rendered and this proceeding was commenced, provided that all expenses incurred by the Commissioner in carrying out the provisions of the article (under which the Commissioner acted) and in performing the duties therein devolved upon him, shall be audited by the Comptroller as extraordinary expenses of the Department of Agriculture, ■and paid out of any moneys in the treasury appropriated for such purposes. And in 1908 an appropriation of $7,000 was made by the