Opinion

People ex rel. Barrows v. Board of Supervisors

  • 23 How. Pr. 395
  • 1862 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 203
Court
New York Supreme Court
Filed
Jul 3, 1862
Status
Published
Author
Smith
On the bench
Smith
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 26.5%

The opinion

James C. Smith, Justice.

I overrule the demurrer in this case, on the ground that the relators have not presented their claim to the board of supervisors, to be audited by them, as required by the provisions of chapter 83, Laws 1861, p. 158.

In view of the obvious design of that act, to prevent protracted sessions of the boards of supervisors, I think that its provisions apply to all claims, whatever their form, *396 which are required by law to be presented to the boards to be audited by them.

There is no doubt but that the claim of the relators is of that nature, notwithstanding it may be clearly a legal charge upon the county, (a point which I do not decide,) and the supervisors may have no discretion as to its amount. (1 R. S., 386, § 3, sub. 15; id., § 4; 20 Barb., 294 ; 23 Barb., 338 ; 1 Seld., 67.)

Judgment for defendants, with costs.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.