Page images
PDF
EPUB

O see

neglect or refusal to perform a duty imposed upon him by law. [Pol. Code, Sec. 4086.] A complaint alleging failure of board of supervisors to issue certain railroad bonds, whereby plaintiff was damaged, the action being brought against the county: held, the complaint did not state a cause of action against the county.

Santa Cruz R. R. Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, 62 Cal. 181; same v. Supervisors, 62 Cal. 239-250.

An action against members of the board of supervisors for improperly allowing and pay. ing illegal demands against the county should be prosecuted by the district attorney, in the name of the county. There is no authority in a private individual to prosecute such action in his own name. Hedges v. Dam, 72 Cal. 522.

The law only authorizes the supervisors to fix compensation of officers where the same is not otherwise fixed by statute. Where a given sum was fixed as salary for one filling consolidated offices, a segregation of the offices, without any law fixing compensation for the several offices, destroyed that fixed salary, and left the salaries for the several offices to be determined and fixed. [Sec. 4046 Pol. Code.] Kinsey v. Kellogg, 65 Cal. 114. But see, also, Swinnerton v. Monterey, 76 Cal. 114.

The payment of the salary of an officer whose office has been created and salary fixed by law, is not within the prohibition of section 8, article XI, of the constitution, prohibiting the city, county, etc., from incurring indebted

ness in excess of the revenue of each year. Lewis v. Widber, 99 Cal. 412.

It is discretionary with the supervisors to post instead of publishing the proclamation calling special election in a road district. County of San Luis Obispo v. White, 91 Cal. 438.

Whether a county ordinance is reasonable, is a question for the court. Merced County v. Fleming, 111 Cal. 49.

Failure of the clerk to record an ordinance duly passed does not affect its validity. County of San Luis Obispo v. White, 91 Cal. 436; Irri

gation Dist. v. De Lappe, 79 Cal. 358; County of Santa Clara v. Railroad Co., 66 Cal. 644.

The requirement that the clerk and chairman of the board shall sign the minutes and proceedings, is intended only to make them witnesses that the record is correct. The validity of the record does not depend on their signing, but their failure to sign would simply impose on the party desiring to prove the official action of the board some additional trouble in establishing the handwriting of the entries, etc. County of San Diego v. Siefert, 97 Cal, 598.

The board of supervisors have power to inquire into the qualifications of persons signing a petition for the incorporation of a municipality where they discover that fraud has been practised upon the board, and mandamus will not lie to compel the board to canvass the returns of an election, and issue a certificate of municipal incorporation, when it appears that less than the required number of residents or electors signed the petition for incorporation.

But see

Page v. Board of Supervisors, 85 Cal. 51.

The majority of a quorum of a board of supervisors, a quorum being present, may perform any act which a majority of the board could perform if all the members were present. People v. Harrington, 63 Cal. 560. section 18 of present county government act.

Powers conferred upon boards of supervisors involving the exercise of judgment and discretion cannot be delegated. Scollay v. Butte County, 67 Cal. 251.

The act of March 1, 1872 [Stats. 1871-2, p. 178), provided that the tax collector of Monterey county should receive a certain percentage on the collections made for state and county taxes as compensation for his services. The act of March 16, 1872 Stats. 1871-2, p. 419), provided that the sheriff of the county, for such services, should receive a higher percentage. The latter act repealed all acts in conflict therewith. At the time of the passage of these acts, the sheriff was ex officio tax collector. . Subsequently the offices were made separate. Held, that after the separation of the offices, the tax collector was entitled to receive the percentage provided for in the act of March 16, 1872. Swinerton v. Monterey County, 76 Cal. 114. But see also Kinsey v. Kellogg, 65 Cal. 114.

ACT OF 1897.

An Act to establish u uniform system of county

and township governments.

[Approved April 1, 1897.)

Bodies corporate and politic.

SECTION 1. The several counties of this state, as they now exist, and such other counties as may be hereafter organized, according to law, are bodies corporate and politic, and as such have the powers specified in this act, and such other powers as are necessarily implied.

Political Code, section 4000.

The state of California was first divided into counties by acts of the legislature of February 16th, 1850; this was amended by act of April 5th of the same year.

In Smith v. Meyers, 15 Cal. 34, it is said that the people of a county are not a corporation, and possess no capacity of suing or being sued. The county acts and is dealt with only in its corporate capacity.

And in Emeric v. Gilman, 10 Cal. 404, it was held that the private property of individuals cannot be taken under execution against a county; that no execution could issue on a judgment against a county. If a judgment is rendered against a county, it is the duty of

Page v. Board of Supervisors, 85 Cal. 51.

The majority of a quorum of a board of supervisors, a quorum being present, may perform any act which a majority of the board could perform if all the members were present. People v. Harrington, 63 Cal. 560. But see section 18 of present county government act.

Powers conferred upon boards of supervisors involving the exercise of judgment and discre. tion cannot be delegated. Scollay v. Butte County, 67 Cal. 251.

The act of March 1, 1872 [Stats. 1871-2, p. 178), provided that the tax collector of Monterey county should receive a certain percentage on the collections made for state and county taxes as compensation for his services. The act of March 16, 1872 [Stats. 1871-2, p. 419], provided that the sheriff of the county, for such services, should receive a higher percentage. The latter act repealed all acts in conflict therewith. At the time of the passage of these acts, the sheriff was ex officio tax collector. Subsequently the offices were made separate. Held, that after the separation of the offices, the tax collector was entitled to receive the percentage provided for in the act of March 16, 1872. Swinerton v. Monterey County, 76 Cal. 114. But see also Kinsey v. Kellogg, 65 Cal. 114.

« PreviousContinue »