The opinion
Reaue, J.
1. As to whether a demand was necessary before action ?
In
Nichols
v.
Pool,
2 Jones 23 , which is the leading case in our Court upon the subject, it is decided, that if a note be payable at a particular time and place, a demand at the time and place need not be averred or poved in an action by the holder against the maker, It. is otherwise if the note be payable
on demand
at a particular time and place.
In our case, it is stated that the notes and coupons were payable at Marion; but it is not stated that they were payable
on demand
at Marion. It would seem, therefore, that if this were an ordinary action between individuals, no demand would bo necessary against the maker. This brings us to the question whether we should hold the same in regard to actions against the Board of County Commissioners. In
Love
v.
Comms. of
Chatham, 64 N. C. R. 706, it is decided that a demand is necessary, before action brought, without regard to the fact whether the claim is expressed to be payable at any particular time or place. There is a manifest reason why the rule should be different between an individual and the Board of Commissioners. An individual acts for himself, is supposed to know all
*332
his liabilities, and it is his duty to meet them. But a Board of Commissioners is a public agent, discharging many of its duties through other agents. There must often be claims against the county, contracted not under its immediate order, of which it knows nothing until they are presented to the Board to be allowed, and when claims are allowed, the Board does not hold the funds to pay them, but must give an order upon the proper officer. Amd it would greatly embarrass, if not destroy, the county governments, if every holder of a claim could sue the Board without a demand or notice. We are therefore of the opinion that a demand or notice is necessary before action against the Board of Commissioners.
2. But suppose this were not so ; still the question remains, whether a mandamus should issue'without a demand upon the defendant to do the thing required. We find it laid down generally, that “it should appear from the#petition, that a demand has been made on the defendant to do the thing he is sought to be compelled to do.”
Moses on
Mandamus, 204. And again : “In order to lay the foundation for issuing a writ ot mandamus, there must have been a refusal to do that which it is the object of the mandamus to enforce, either in direct terms or by circumstances distinctly showing an intention in the party not to do the thing required.”
Ibid.
18. And again : “ The writ should show expressly, by the averment ot a demand and refusal, or an equivalent, that the prosecutor, before his application to the Court, did all in his power to obtain redress.”
Tappan on Mandamus,
323. It is true that there are cases where a demand is dispensed with, as where it is apparent that the party has wdiolly neglected a plain duty.
Moses on Mandamus,
103.
3. The act ot the Legislature authorizing the issuing of the bonds is not unconstitutional, as we have decided in like cases at this term.
Hill v. the Comms. of Forsythe,
and
Alexander
v.
A., T. & O. R. R. Co.
4. No point is made upon it, and it may be that the objec
*333
tion is waived by appearing and answering, but, we call attention to the fact that the action is brought in Mecklenburg against the Board of Commissioners of McDowell County, whereas it would seem that the action ought to have been in the latter county. C. O. P., S. 67.
There is error in his Honor’s ruling that no demand was necessary, and for this error there must be a
venire de novo.
Per Curiam.
Venire de novo.