Hunt v. Franklin County Com'rs

• Decision Date: 15 November 1905
• Citation: 62 A. 213,100 Me. 445
• Parties: HUNT v. FRANKLIN COUNTY COM'RS.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

62 A. 213

100 Me. 445

HUNT

v. FRANKLIN COUNTY COM'RS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Nov. 15, 1905.

Petition by John J. Hunt for writ of certiorari against the county commissioners of Franklin county. Petition dismissed.

Heard by the presiding Justice without intervention of a jury, with the right of exception by each party to rulings of law. Under this stipulation the plaintiff petitioner excepted to certain rulings made by the presiding justice. Overruled.

Argued before EMERY, STROUT, SAVAGE, POWERS, and SPEAR, JJ.

George C. Webber, for plaintiff. H. S. Wing, for defendants.

EMERY, J. The petitioner was an official agent for the prevention of cruelty to animals. In May, 1902, he presented to the county commissioners of Franklin county, for allowance and payment from the county treasury, an itemized bill of $152.48 for services and expenses for investigating cases in that county. The commissioners considered the bill, and in the presence of the petitioner allowed a lump sum of $100 in full for the whole bill. The petitioner thereupon drew that amount from the county treasury upon that order for payment.

In April, 1904, the petitioner, without returning the $100 so drawn by him, again presented the bill to the then county commissioners of Franklin county. The commissioners refused to allow any part of it, or to make any adjudication upon any separate items, and thereupon this petition was filed for a writ of certiorari to bring up the commissioners' doing in the matter.

The petitioner urges that the allowance of a lump sum for his itemized bill less than the full amount was illegal; that the commissioners should have allowed or disallowed each item, and should be compelled to do so now, in order that he might bring the disallowed item before the court. On the other hand, the respondents claim that certiorari is not the proper remedy for the petitioner.

We have no occasion to consider either of the above contentions, since a complete answer to the petition is made by the fact that, with knowledge that $100 was allowed him in full for his whole bill, he drew that amount from the treasury upon such allowance, and has not returned it. He cannot now reopen the matter. Perry v. Cheboygan, 55 Mich. 250, 21 N. W. 333; Brick v. Plymouth County (Iowa) 19 N. W. 304; Murphy v. United States, 104 U. S. 464, 26 L. Ed. 833. As well might a plaintiff who had recovered and collected judgment in a common-law action for less than his claim, stated...