¶1 We do not see how the court below could have decided otherwise than it has, upon the facts in the case agreed. The plaintiffs seemed to have entertained the notion that the orders made by the board of county commissioners in their meetings held on the 4th of June, 1878, the 1st Monday in August, 1878, and the 7th of October,. 1878, were adjudications upon the rights of the parties, and the orders of January, 1879, annulling these orders were ultra vires and void.
¶2 In this position we do not concur. The allowance of a claim by a county board of commissioners is not final and conclusive. Such an allowance is only prima facie evidence of the correctness of the claim. In the case of Commissioners v. Keller, 6 Kan., 510, it is held that the allowance of a claim, by the county board is not final and conclusive. It may be reexamined by the board itself, and on appeal may be examined or disallowed in whole or in part by the court, and it. is error to instruct the jury that the allowance of a claim by the board is an adjudication as binding on the parties as the judgment of a court. If the decision of the county board was final and conclusive, then a party who once had a claim rejected for any cause could not again present it for allowance beeause it would be res adjudícala, yet this is constantly done and the practice has not been questioned.
¶3 We are therefore lead to the conclusion that an allowance made by a board may at any time be re-examined, modified or annulled, for reasons that may appear to them sufficient.
¶4 But it is conceded that the county commissioners received the money of the plaintiffs from the clerk and master and used it for county purposes. The county is therefore liable, but for what amount is the question.
¶5 There is no evidence as to the kind of money paid over by the clerk and master to the county commissioners— *715 whether gold, silver, bank bills, or confederate treasury notes. If the case had stated that the funds received by the clerk and master were of a particular kind, and he had paid over the identical funds to the board, there would be no doubt as to the amount of the liability of the county. But the case does not show that, nor what kind of money or funds were paid over. As it was a notorious fact that confederate treasury notes, about November, 1863, (when this fund was paid over) was the only circulating medium in the ordinary business transactions in this state, we must presume, in the absence of all proof to the contrary, that the fund paid over to the board of commissioners was confederate money. The defendants then are only liable for the ■ value of that currency when received.
¶6 Under this view, Keeser and wife having received one hundred and forty dollars in June, 1878, in good money, have been paid more than is due to them. The judgment that Harris and wife and Abernathy and wife recover the amounts claimed by them, subject to the scale, must be affirmed with interest on the amount due Abernathy and wife from the 1st Monday in April, 1878, and on the amount due Harris and wife from the 1st of October, 1878.
¶7 There is no error.
¶8 No error. Affirmed.