Black v. Cnty. Comm'rs of Saunders Cnty.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1879
• Citation: 1 N.W. 144,8 Neb. 440
• Parties: JOHN BLACK, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SAUNDERS COUNTY, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

8 Neb. 440

1 N.W. 144

JOHN BLACK, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,

v.THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SAUNDERS COUNTY, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

January Term, 1879.

Error from Saunders County.

Woodworth & Munger, for plaintiff in error.

Clinton Briggs, for defendant in error.

LAKE, J.

--The question presented by the record in this case, is whether the appeal from the board of county commissioners to the district court was properly taken and perfected. The court below held it was not, and on motion of the defendantentered an order of dismissal. In this, we think there was error.

The action of the district court was most likely taken because of the want of a formal judgment by the county commissioners on the plaintiff's claim, the transcript of their proceedings thereon merely showing that they “refused to grant” the claim. But whatever the ground of dismissal of the appeal may have been, it was clearly in violation of the plaintiff's right to have his cause tried in that court on appeal.

By the second subdivision of § 14, ch. 13, Gen. Stat., it is provided, that the board of county commissioners, at any meeting, shall have power “to examine and settle all accounts of the receipts and expenditures of the county, and allow all accounts chargeable against the county,” etc. Now while the commissioners, in passing upon claims against the county, presented for their allowance, act judicially, it is not essential or even proper for them to enter a formal judgment after the manner of courts of law in the determination of actions before them. It is sufficient if it appear from their records, kept by the county clerk, that the claim was duly presented, and that it was allowed or rejected. Great formality in this matter is not to be expected of them, nor is it required. The transcript filed in the district court in this case shows that the plaintiff's claim was duly presented at the July meeting of the board of county commissioners by petition, setting forth in detail the particulars of the demand, “which said petition said board of county commissioners refused to grant.” This was equivalent to saying that the claim was disallowed. It was a final disposition of the claim by the board. It was a rejection of the demand. Sec. 34, ch. 13, Gen. Stat., provides, that “any person who shall be aggrieved by any decision of the board of commissioners may appeal from the decision of the board to the district court of the same county,” etc., by serving...