People ex rel. Johnston v. Board of Supervisors — 50 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 385

Majority

p. 385

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. CHARLES R. JOHNSTON, Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ULSTER COUNTY, Respondent.

Headnote

County charge — the loss sustained by a creditor on discounting a valid claim against the county, is not a county charge.

The relator was entitled to the payment, monthly, of a per diem compensation of two dollars per day for his services as janitor of the armory of the city of Kingston. No provision having been made by the board of supervisors for

p. 386

these payments he discounted his claims at a bank, paying therefor, in all, the sum of forty-two dollars and fifty cents.

Held, that the discount allowed to the bank was not a county charge, and that an application for a mandamus to compel the board of supervisors to allow the claim was properly denied.

Appeal from an order, entered in Ulster county, denying a writ of peremptory mandamus against respondent, applied for by appellant, under, an order'to show cause why such writ should not issue, . to compel respondent to audit, allow and provide payment for a bill ¡presented by relator- to said board, of the sum of forty-two dollars and fifty cents.

The relator, who was janitor of the armory of the city of Kingston, Ulster county, under a per diem compensation of two dollars, claimed that at the end of every month he sold or assigned his salary or wages of the previous month to the National Ulster County Bank for a certain discount, at a loss aggregating, for the several months for which he was employed, the sum of forty-two dollars and fifty cents. This bill being presented to the board, was rejected.

Charles A. Fowler, for the.appellant.

A. D. Lent, for the respondent.

The relator was entitled to the payment monthly for his services as janitor of the armory, and his monthly wages were a county charge. (Chap. 299, § 64, Laws 1883.) But provision was not made for his monthly payment, and he had the bills discounted at .a bank; the aggregate' amount of the discounts allowed the bank was forty-two dollars and fifty cents. The relator presented a ■verified bill to the board of supervisors for this sum and its allowance was refused.

The discount allowed by the relator to the bank was not for the benefit of the county, and is not a- county charge. The relator’s -claim is of the nature of damages for delay in payment. No statute authorizes such a charge. If interest ought to be allowed, it would .attach to the bills themselves and be the claim of the present holder. -The propriety of the allowance of the present claim is doubtful; certainly the relator has no clear legal right to it. The motion for

p. 387

a mandamus was properly denied, and the order should be affirmed with ten dollars costs and printing disbtirsements.

Learned, P. J., concurred; Parker, J., not acting.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.