The defendants and appellants do not pretend to contend before this Court that the paying the debt of $ 1,650 against the County, by drawing a warrant for $ 4,125, was just and legal. They offer no argument to sustain the action of the Board of Supervisors and County Auditor, and for the simple reason that nothing can be said in defense of that action. It was utterly unauthorized and illegal.
But the defendants contend that the judgment below should be reversed and modified, so as to allow Coleman to receive on the warrant the $ 1,650, which appears to have been due to him. We say, it should not be, because the entire warrant is null and void, and is founded upon an illegal and void order of allowance, and consequently no part thereof can legally be paid. Coleman can again present his claim to the Board of Supervisors, and, when legally allowed, can obtain a new warrant for the true amount due him. That he would be thereby delayed is no reason that the judgment in this case should be modified, for the fault was his own, in endeavoring to obtain that which was not justly due him; and if he suffers in consequence of his own wrong, he has no right to complain, even though he were to lose his entire demand.
JUDGES: Field, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Terry, C. J., and Baldwin, J., concurring.
OPINION
FIELD, Judge
The defendant Coleman was, in 1856, Deputy Assessor of the County of Los Angeles, and presented his account for services as such officer, for one hundred and sixty-five days, at the rate of ten dollars a day, amounting to the sum of $ 1,650, to the Board of Supervisors of that County, for allowance. The Board audited and allowed the account, and ordered it to be paid, the order being in the following words: " Ordered, the sum of four thousand one hundred and twenty-five dollars to be paid out of the fund for current expenses, to equal sixteen hundred and fifty dollars, in cash, at the rate of forty cents per dollar--October 29th, 1856." In pursuance of this order, the County Auditor drew his warrant for $ 4,125, upon the County Treasurer, and delivered it to Coleman, who presented it to the Treasurer, and by him it was indorsed and registered in its order of presentation, among the legal warrants against the County. The plaintiff is a tax-payer of the County, and instituted the present suit to enjoin the payment of this warrant, and to obtain its cancelation.
The only question presented for determination respects the validity of the order of the Board of Supervisors. It appears that the market or cash value of County warrants was only forty per cent. of the nominal amount, and the object of the action of the Board was to give Coleman that which was, at the time, an equivalent to cash. The object did not justify the action. The effect of the order was to create a debt or liability on the part of the County, and this the Supervisors were not empowered to do for any purpose except as provided by law. Their action was entirely without authority, and altogether indefensible.
The demand of the plaintiff for his services can be again presented to the Board, and upon its allowance a warrant for its true amount ordered.
Judgment affirmed.