Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

10 Cal. 278

Foster v. Coleman

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1858

California Supreme Court · decided 1858-07-01

The complaint in this case alleges that the defendant Alexander is the county treasurer of Los Angeles county; that the defendant Coleman was deputy assessor of said county, and on the twenty-ninth of October, 1856, presented to the board of supervisors of said county, for allowance, an account for one hundred and sixty-five days’ service as assessor, at the rate of ten dollars per day, amounting to the sum of $1650; that the account was audited by the board, and allowed,…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1858-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 2014

2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

8018581860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Field, J., delivered the opinion of the Court

¶1Terry, C. J., and Baldwin, J., concurring.

¶2The defendant Coleman was, in 1856, deputy assessor of the county of Los Angeles, and presented his account for services as such officer, for one hundred and sixty-five days, at the rate of ten dollars a day, amounting to the sum of §1650, to the board of supervisors of that county, for allowance. The board audited and allowed the account, and ordered it to be paid, the order being in the following words : “ Ordered, the sum of four thousand one hundred and twenty-five dollars be paid out of the fund for current expenses, to equal sixteen hundred and fifty dollars, in cash, at the rate of forty cents per dollar—October 29, 1856.” In pursuance of this order, the county auditor drew his warrant for §4125, upon the county treasurer, and delivered it to Coleman, who presented it to the treasurer, and by him it was endorsed and registered in its order of .presentation, among the legal warrants against the county. The plaintiff is a tax-payer of the county, and instituted the present suit to enjoin the payment of this warrant, and to obtain its cancellation.

¶3The only question presented for determination respects the validity of the order of the board of supervisors. It appears that the market or cash value of county warrants, was only forty per cent, of the nominal amount, and the object of the action of the board was to give Coleman that which was, at the time, an equivalent to cash. The object did not justify the action. The effect of the order was to create a debt or liability on the part of the county, and this the supervisors were not empowered to do for any purpose except as provided by law. Their action was entirely without authority, and altogether indefensible.

¶4The demand of the plaintiff for his services can be again presented to the board, and upon its allowance a warrant for its true amount ordered.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/10/cal/278 · .json · Public domain