Taylor v. Davey
| Decision Date | 19 May 1898 |
| Citation | 55 Neb. 153,75 N.W. 553 |
| Parties | TAYLOR ET AL. v. DAVEY, COUNTY TREASURER, ET AL. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. An order of a county board allowing or rejecting claims against the county has the force and effect of a judgment, and is conclusive, unless vacated or reversed on appeal.
2. A taxpayer may prosecute an appeal to the district court from the decision of the county board in the allowance of claims.
3. A court of equity will not, at the suit of a private individual, enjoin the payment of a warrant issued upon a claim duly audited by the county board, the remedy being complete at law, by appeal from the order allowing the claim.
4. Ackerman v. Thummel, 58 N. W. 738, 40 Neb. 95, distinguished.
Appeal from district court, Dakota county; Norris, Judge.
Suit by William Taylor and another against Frank Davey, county treasurer of Dakota county, and another, for an injunction. From a judgment granting the relief prayed, defendants appeal. Reversed.Jay & Welty, for appellants.
R. E. Evans and Wm. P. Warner, for appellees.
In November, 1892, one Simon Fritzon presented a claim to the county board of Dakota county for the sum of $1,100, the balance alleged to be due him for making an examination of the books and accounts of the treasurer of said county. On December 1st following the county board audited and allowed said claim, and a warrant for said amount was drawn upon the county general fund in favor of said Fritzon, and the same was registered for payment by the treasurer. Afterwards, on February 1, 1894, this suit was instituted by two electors and taxpayers of the county to enjoin the payment of said warrant by the county treasurer. The owner of the warrant intervened, and upon the final hearing the district court entered a decree perpetually enjoining the payment of the warrant. The defendant and intervener have brought the record to this court for review.
Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the payment of the warrant in question for the following reasons: (1) That the contract made by said county with Fritzon, which is the basis for said warrant, was illegal; (2) that said contract was not executed; (3) that said claim was not included in the estimates of expenses made by the county board; (4) there was no money on hand, or levy of taxes made, against which said warrant could be drawn.
A county board has exclusive original jurisdiction to examine and pass upon claims against the county properly cognizable for audit and allowance, and the action of such board in allowing and rejecting claims has the force and effect of a judgment, and is conclusive, unless vacated or reversed by means of appropriate appellate proceeding. This is the settled doctrine of this court. Heald v. Polk Co., 46 Neb. 28, 64 N. W. 376;State v. Merrell, 43 Neb. 575, 61 N. W. 754;State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial