State ex rel. Cummings v. Kirby

• Decision Date: 02 October 1882
• Citation: 17 S.C. 563
• Parties: STATE EX REL. CUMMINGS v. KIRBY.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

17 S.C. 563

STATE EX REL. CUMMINGS v. KIRBY.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

October 2, 1882

1.A succeeding Board of County Commissioners has no authority to review and revise the action of its predecessor in auditing and allowing a claim against the county.

2.The statute of limitations does not apply to a proceeding in mandamus , but where there is unreasonable delay the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, will refuse to issue the writ, as in this case, where the application was made ten years after the claim was allowed, and seven years after liability denied, without any explanation for the delay.

Application for mandamus in behalf of A. W. Cummings against A. H. Kirby and others, County Commissioners of Spartanburg.The opinion states the case.

Messrs Shand & Bryce, for relator.

Messrs. Bobo & Carlisle, contra.

OPINION

MR JUSTICE MCIVER.

This was an application to this Court, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, for a mandamus to compel the respondents, as County Commissioners of the County of Spartanburg, to draw their warrant on the County Treasurer in favor of the relator, for the payment of certain claims held by him against the said county, as a part of its past indebtedness.

It is not denied that, in 1872, these claims were audited and allowed by the then Board of County Commissioners of said county and have not yet been paid; nor is it denied that the Board have been authorized from year to year, since 1874, by the Legislature to levy a tax to pay the past indebtedness of the county; nor that such tax has been regularly levied and collected; nor that there are now funds in the hands of the County Treasurer applicable to the past indebtedness.The respondents, in their return, however, allege that in 1875, a succeeding Board of County Commissioners re-examined the claims held by the relator, and that they were then " found to be improper and illegal charges against the county," and proceed to specify in what particulars the said claims are illegal and improper, wherefore they have ever since refused to pay the same.

The first question, therefore, which is presented is whether a succeeding Board of County Commissioners has any authority to review and revise the action of its predecessor in auditing and allowing a claim against the county.No such authority is conferred by any statute, nor is such a power necessarily incident to any of the powers conferred upon the Board.We are unable therefore to discover any warrant for the exercise of such a power.It would be in conflict with all the analogies of the law to hold that one Board had an appellate power to review and reverse the action of its predecessor, and would lead to endless complication and confusion.If one Board could review and revise the action of its predecessor, there is no reason why its successor should not have the same power, and the result would be that there could be no such thing as a final determination.

It must be assumed that one set of County Commissioners is quite as likely to be competent to discharge the duties of the office as another, and quite as willing to perform those duties honestly, and there is no reason...