ers under section 274, Code of Civil Procedure, and the latter clause of section 274-"and if a criminal case, to be paid out of the treasury of the county on the order of the court." Ex parte Reis, 64 Cal. 237-244.

So under section 1388, Penal Code, the court may order paid out of the treasury not exceeding $25 on account of maintainance of minors charged with crime, while confined in charitable non-sectarian reformatory. Aid Society v. Reis, 71 Cal. 634.

School moneys are drawn without claims going to supervisors. Political Code, section. 1622, and subdivision 3, section 1543. And see notes under sections 67-72, post.

Prohibition will not lie at the suit of a tax payer to prevent a board of supervisors from auditing or ordering paid certain claims on the ground that the same are not proper or valid claims against the county. Until the supervisors have acted it cannot be known. that they will allow an improper claim. Merriam v. Supervisors, 72 Cal 517.

The provision of section 41 of the county government act of 1891, requiring a claim presented to the board of supervisors to be itemized, "giving names, dates, and particular services rendered," before it can be allowed, is directed to the board of supervisors alone, and there is no provision in the act giving the auditor a revisory control over their action; but the auditor is in duty bound to draw his warrant in favor of every person whose claim has been legally examined, allowed, and

ordered to be paid by the board of supervisors; and the provisions of sections 45 and 114 of the act do not justify him in withholding a warrant merely because the clerk has not certified the items of the claim, or the liability for which it was allowed; but it is his duty in such case to ascertain by inquiry the nature of the liability in order to distinctly specify it in the warrant, and that the claim has been allowed and ordered paid by the board of supervisors, and, upon receiving such information from the county clerk, it is his duty to draw the warrant. Sehorn v. Williams, 110 Cal. 621.

When a contract with a county for bridge work provided that the contract price was payable upon presentation of the written certificate of the superintendent of construction that the bridge was completed in every respect in accordance with the terms of the contract, and that the contractor should be paid in warrants drawn against a particular road district fund, the presentation and rejection of a claim for the contract price, which failed to have the superintendent's certificate attached, should not bar action by the supervisors upon a subsequent presentation of the claim which has the proper certificate attached, and which is presented against the fund mentioned in the contract, and asks for warrants against that fund; and the supervisors may be compelled by mandamus to act upon such second claim. Smith v. Supervisors, San Bernardino Co., 99 Cal. 262.

It is the duty of the county treasurer to pay an auditor's warrant on the school fund if it is regular and legal in form, unless he has notice that it is based upon an unlawful demand, or has notice of facts sufficient to put a prudent person upon inquiry. Finding of court that "treasurer did not, during his said term of office, keep any books as required by subdivision 3 of section 70 of county government act," is indefinite and insufficient. Los Angeles v. Lankershim, 100 Cal. 528. Form for claims.

SEC. 41.

No account shall be passed upon by the board, unless made out as prescribed in this and the preceding section and filed with the clerk three days prior to the time of the meeting of the board at which it is asked to be allowed.

Such demand shall be made out in form substantially as follows:

Clerk's memoranda, No.

-Fund.

Demand of

for

Allowed by the board of supervisors 18, in sum of $

་

Attest:

Demand of.

No.

Clerk of Board.

Fund

treasury of the county of

for the sum of

Date.

Demand on the state of California,

-dollars,

being for

Expenditures authorized and approved by me.

State of California,

County of

}

SS.

The undersigned, being duly sworn, says: That the above claim and items as therein set out are true and correct; that no part thereof has been heretofore paid, and that the amount therein is justly due this claimant, and that the same is presented within one year after the last item thereof has accrued.

of

Subscribed and sworn to before me this

-day

County Clerk. 18-, in

Allowed by board of supervisors,
-, payable out of- -fund.
Clerk of Board of Supervisors.
Chairman Board of Super-

sum of $

Attest:

Countersigned:

Said demand shall be approved before filing by the officer who directed such expenditure. If said demand be allowed by the board, the clerk of the board shall detach and file the memorandum, and shall indorse on such demand "allowed by the board of supervisors," together with the date of such allowance, the amount of such allowance, and from what fund; shall attest the same with his signature, and when countersigned by the chairman, shall transmit the same to the auditor, who shall, in case he allows said demand, indorse upon it "allowed, together with the amount for which it is allowed, from what fund, date, and number of the warrant, and shall, in attestation thereof, affix his signature thereto and deliver the same to the claimant; and said demand, when so allowed and signed by the

auditor, shall constitute the warrant on the treasury, within the meaning of this act.

Political Code section 4073: "No account must be necessarily passed upon by the board unless made out as prescribed in the preceding section and filed by the clerk at least one day prior to the session at which it is asked to be heard."

Section 42 of the acts of 1883, 1891 and 1893, was like 4073 of the code, except that the word "necessarily" was omitted. The form of claim prescribed by this section is therefore new.

The provision of section 41 of the county government act of 1891 requiring a claim presented to the board of supervisors to be itemized, "giving names, dates, and particular services rendered," before it can be allowed, is directed to the board of supervisors alone, and there is no provision in the act giving the auditor a revisory control over their action; but the auditor is in duty bound to draw his warrant in favor of every person whose claim has been legally examined, allowed, and ordered to be paid by the board of supervisors; and the provisions of sections 45 and 114 of the act do not justify him in withholding a warrant merely because the clerk has not certified the items of the claim, or the liability for which it was allowed; but it is his duty in such case to ascertain by inquiry the nature of the liability in order to distinctly specify it in the warrant, and that the claim has been allowed and ordered paid by the board of supervisors, and, upon receiving such information from the