State Ex Rel. People's Bank Of Greenville v. Goodwin

• Decision Date: 26 October 1907
• Citation: 59 S.E. 35
• Parties: STATE ex rel. PEOPLE'S BANK OF GREENVILLE. v. GOODWIN, County Sup'r, et al.*
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

59 S.E. 35

STATE ex rel. PEOPLE'S BANK OF GREENVILLE.

v.GOODWIN, County Sup'r, et al.^*

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Oct. 26, 1907.

1. Mandamus — Grounds —Issue of Warrants by Public Officers — Statutory Provisions.

Under Civ. Code 1902, § 607, prohibiting public officers from applying funds from current taxes to payment of past indebtedness, and section 809, forbidding the county supervisor from drawing checks unless the county treasurer has reported funds in the treasury to pay them, there is no ground for mandamus to compel the county supervisor to draw a warrant for the payment of unpaid claims when the return shows that there are no funds in the hands of the county treasurer applicable to their payment.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 33, Mandamus, §§ 217-222.]

2. Same — Existence of Right to be Enforced—Levy of Taxes.

Under Const, art. 5, § 10, authorizing the General Assembly to vest in municipal authorities of a county power to levy taxes for corporate purposes, the Supreme Court cannot issue a mandamus to compel the county board of commissioners to levy a special tax to pay ordinary claims against the county, where the General Assembly has not conferred such power.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 33, Mandamus, § 37.]

3. Taxation—Extent of Power—Statutory Provisions.

Civ. Code 1902, § 799, requiring the county board of commissioners to prepare an estimate of the amount necessary to pay expenses incurred by the board and for ordinary county expenses, and to report the same to the Comptroller General for submission to the General Assembly in order to provide necessary taxation for county purposes, was intended to embrace claims for past indebtedness legally approved by the board.

4. Counties—Allowance of Claims—Conclusiveness.

The action of the county board in allowing a claim presented in such a form as to give the board jurisdiction is an adjudication in the merits of the claim, not subject to collateral attack, and hence not affected by the conclusions of an investigating committee that the claim is invalid, though it might be set aside for fraud in a direct proceeding instituted for that purpose.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 13, Counties, §§ 322-325.]

5. Same—Want of Jurisdiction—Collater-al Attack.

Under Civ. Code 1902, § 806, providing that no claim shall be audited and paid by the county board unless it is itemized and accompanied by an affidavit that the items are correct, etc., the board has no jurisdiction to audit and allow a claim not so itemized nor verified, and its allowance of such claim is void and subject to collateral attack.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 13, Counties, §§ 322-325.]

6. Same—Record—Showing Jurisdictional Facts.

Facts necessary to give the comity board jurisdiction in the auditing and allowing of claims must appear on the record, since it is an inferior tribunal, and, if such facts do not appear, its judgment may be treated as a nullity wherever encountered.

7. Taxation—Levy—Items—Claims Not Legally Allowed.

In making the estimate required by Civ. Code 1902, § 799, of the amount necessary to pay expenses incurred by the county board of commissioners and for ordinary county expenses, for the purpose of enabling the General Assembly to make the proper levy, the board is under no duty to include other than valid claims. Hence, claims not itemized or verified by affidavit need not be included, even though they have been audited and allowed.

Mandamus by the people, on the relation of the People's Bank of Greenville, against J. P. Goodwin, county supervisor, and others. Petition dismissed.

J. A. McCullough, for petitioner.

H. J. Haynsworth, for respondents.

WOODS, J. In this petition for mandamus, the People's Bank of Greenville alleges it purchased for valuable consideration and without notice of any defects, if any exist, a number of claims listed in the petition, against the county of Greenville, which had been audited and approved by the county board of commissioners. The petition further alleges: "That although the county had and now has funds applicable to the payment of the said claims, J. W. Walker, county supervisor, and being the predecessor of the present incumbent, and the old board of county commissioners, refused to take any steps toward paying the said claims, but denied the validity thereof, and the present respondents, after demand made upon them, refuse to take any steps towards the payment of the said claims, and J. P. Goodwin, county supervisor, refuses, after demand made upon him, to draw his order or warrant upon the county treasurer upon the funds in his possession applicable to the said claims or any of them, and the respondents, after demand upon them, have failed and refused to do the acts required of them by law, looking towards the payment of the said claims or any of them, and they deny the validity of the said claims, or that the county is liable on account thereof, and the county commissioners of Greenville county refuse to levy a tax to pay the said claims or any part thereof, as they are required by law to do, and they further refuse to in-clude the said claims, or any part of them, in the budget of expenses incurred for ordinary county expenses and report the same to the Comptroller General of the state, by him to be submitted to the General Assembly, in order to provide the necessary taxation for county purposes, and they have attempted to repudiate the said claim and have refused, and still refuse, to take any action whatsoever, looking towards the recognition and payment thereof." The prayer is: "That J. P. Goodwin, county supervisor, be required to draw his order or warrant upon the county treasurer for such funds as may be in his hands applicable to the said claims or any of them. (2) That the board of county commissioners of the said county be required to levy a tax in payment of the said claims. (3) That the said board of county commissioners be required to include In the budget, or estimate of the amount of money necessary to pay the expenses incurred by the said board and for ordinary county expenses, the claims aforesaid and report the same to the Comptroller General of the state, to be by him submitted to the General Assembly In order that their payment may be provided for. (4) That the respondents and each of them be required to do any and all acts required of them by law looking towards the recognition and payment of the said claims. (5) For such other and further relief as petitioner may be entitled to. * * * "

The return shows there are no funds in the hands of the county treasurer applicable to the claims set out in the petition, which are for past indebtedness; and section 607 of the Civil Code of 1902 prohibits the respondents, as public officers, from applying the funds arising from the taxes for the current year to the payment of indebtedness contracted in any previous fiscal year. Section 809 of Civil Code of 1902 forbids the supervisor to draw checks unless the county treasurer "has reported funds in the treasury to pay the same, " and it forbids the county treasurer to pay checks drawn in violation of its provisions. There is therefore no ground to ask for mandamus to require the issuing and payment of a check for the amount of petitioner's claims.

By section 10, art. 5, of the Constitution, the General Assembly was authorized to vest in the municipal authorities of a county the power to lay taxes for corporate purposes, but the General Assembly has not seen fit to confer the power on the county board of commissioners, except a limited power to lay a special tax of one mill for roads. 23 St. at Large, p. 1012. Therefore, this court cannot issue a mandamus to require the board to do an act not within its official duty or power. In Supervisors v. U. S., 18 Wall. (U. S.) 77, 21 L. Ed. 771, the court says: "It is very plain that...