any one year in excess of the revenue of that year did not prohibit the auditor from auditing the demands of deputy county clerks for salaries, notwithstanding such salaries would aggregate more than the limit fixed by the board of supervisors for that year. Welch v. Strother, 74 Cal. 415.

Section 36 of the county government act contains substantially the same provision as section 18, article XI of the coustitution, and also provides a method by which to estimate and determine the amount which may be allowed against each fund, and declares that the board shall have no power to make allowances against any fund which, with allowances previously made, and salaries and liabilities fixed by law, payable therefrom, shall exceed the auditor's estimate of revenue for the year. Held, a claim properly payable out of a particular road fund, if at all, cannot be ordered paid out of the general county fund upon the ground that the road fund is in an impoverished condition. Schwartz v. Wilson, 75 Cal. 504.

There is no law authorizing a board of supervisors to pay or contract to pay, a third person, or any person, for procuring a purchaser for the county's bonds. The treasurer is given charge of the matter of such sale subject to approval by the supervisors, and the mode to be pursued by the treasurer is pointed out. Smith v. County of Los Angeles, 99 Cal. 630.

A contract by a county for work to be done

in the future, to be paid for in installments as the work progresses, where the installments payable in any one year do not exceed the revenue of that year, does not, at the time of entering into the contract, create any debt or liability for the aggregate of the installments, but only creates such debt or liability as may arise from year to year, and is valid. Smilie v. Fresno County, 112 Cal. 312; McBean v. City of Fresno, 112 Cal. 163.

As to when a liability accrues under a contract is discussed in McGowan v. Ford, 107 Cal. 184.

When a contract has been awarded according to law, work required to be done by law in performance of it, is in legal effect done by order of the board of supervisors who let the contract for it, and is a charge against the county, enforcible according to the terms of the contract. [Sec. 3764, Pol. Code.] Times Pub. Co. v. Alameda, 64 Cal. 471.

But a contract by a board of supervisors with its clerk who is under regular salary, for extra compensation for collecting money due from the state for the care of indigent orphans and half-orphans, is unlawful as creating an increase of pay. And an action cannot be sustained for such compensation by the district attorney of the county to whom the clerk assigned the contract. Such contracts are against public policy. Power v. May, 114 Cal. 208.

Plans, etc., not to be altered.

SEC. 37.

Whenever the board of supervisors

shall adopt plans and specifications for the erection, alteration, construction, or repair of any public building, bridge, or other public structure, such plans and specifications shall not be altered or changed in any manner whereby the cost of such building, bridge, or structure shall be increased, except by a vote of two-thirds of their number.

See notes under subdivision 8, section 25, ante. Section 38 of acts of 1883, 1891 and 1893, required a vote of four-fifths. Compare section 38, infra, change of contract.

Contracts not to be altered, except, etc.

SEC. 38. Whenever the board of supervisors shall enter into a contract for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of any public building, bridge, or other structure, such contract shall not be altered or changed in any manner, unless they shall, by a vote of two-thirds of their number, and with the consent of the contractor, first so order. And whenever any such change or alteration is so ordered, the particular change or alteration shall be specified, in writing, and the cost thereof agreed upon between the board and the contractor. In no case shall the board pay .or become liable to pay for any extra work done on, or extra material furnished for, such building or structure.

See preceding section, and section 39 of acts of 1883, 1891, 1893, where a vote of four-fifths was required.

Presenting of claims by officers.

SEC. 39. No county officer shall, except for his own service, present any claim, account, or demand for allowance against the county, or in any way except in the discharge of his official duty, advocate the relief asked in the claim or demand made by any other. Any person may appear before the board and oppose the allowance of any claim or demand made against the county.

Political Code section 4071. Section 40 of previous county government acts.

Claims to be itemized.

SEC. 40. The board of supervisors must not hear or consider any claim in favor of any public officer, person, corporation, company, or association against the county, nor shall the board credit or allow any claim or bill against the county or district fund, unless the same be itemized, giving names, dates and particular services rendered, character of process served, upon whom, distance traveled, where and when, character of work done, number of days engaged, supplies or materials furnished, to whom, and quantity and price paid therefor, duly verified to be correct, and that the amount claimed is justly due, and is presented and filed with the clerk of the board within a year after the last item of the account or claim accrued. If, in case of any claim which requires itemizing, the board do not hear or consider the same because it is not itemized, they shall cause notice to be given to the claimant or his attorney of that fact, and give time to have the claim itemized and reverified.

Political Code, section 4072, provided only that the claim should consist of an account properly made out, giving all items, duly verified as to its correctness and that the amount claimed was justly due.

Compliance with provisions of the section held necessary, and complaint in suit on the claim must show compliance. An averment that claim was duly presented was held insufficient. Rhoda v. Alameda Co., 52 Cal. 350. Sufficiency of claim, Christie v. Sonoma Co., 60 Cal. 165.

A judgment against a county was held to

be a claim which must be presented. Alden v. Alameda Co., 43 Cal. 272, and see cases in brief of district attorney, p. 271.

All items, substantial compliance. Babcock v. "Goodrich, 47 Cal. 508.

Verification must be annexed. Board has no authority to allow if presented after one year. Legislative removal of bar of one year does not have the effect of validating a claim otherwise illegal, The verification of a claim against a county for a specified amount stated that the claim "is true and correct, and that the same is due and owing from said county to deponent." Held, the verification substantially complied with the requirements of section 4072 Political Code. Rhoda v. Alameda Co., 69 Cal. 524.

Within one year: It was held that this provision shall not be construed to defeat a claim against the county for refunding of taxes, where such claim is founded on a mistake of the tax collector in selling the property, and the mistake was not discovered until less than one year before presenting the claim. Hayes v. County of Los Angeles, 99 Cal. 81.

All demands payable out of the county treasury are not required to be presented to the board of supervisors. Section 1329 of the Penal Code authorizes the judges of superior court to allow compensation to certain impecunious witnesses, and witnesses from other counties, and to direct the auditor to draw his warrant on the treasurer. So in case of compensation to phonographic report