therefore, hold that such petitions or notices must be clear, certain, definite and full in their recitals of facts, and if lacking in any of these respects, the notice should be considered insufficient and the claim should be disallowed.1303 § 490. Audit and allowance of claims. Statutory or charter provisions for the presentment of claims generally provide a tribunal of certain designated officers or official bodies to whom claims should be presented and by whom of Somersworth, 66 N. H. 476; James P. Hall Incorporated Co. v. Jersey City, 62 N. J. Eq. 489, 50 Atl. 603; Lee v. Village of Greenwich, 48 App. Div. 391, 63 N. Y. Supp. 160; Minick v. City of Troy, 83 N. Y. 514; Werner v. City of Rochester, 149 N. Y. 563; Trost v. City of Casselton, 8 N. D. 534; City of Philadelphia v. Sutter, 30 Pa. 53; Burdick v. Richmond, 16 R. I. 502, 17 Atl. 917; Thomas v Douglas County, 13 S. D. 520; City of Dallas v. Myers, (Tex. Civ. App.) 64 S. W. 683; Willard v. Town of Sherburne, 59 Vt. 361; Piper v. City of Spokane, 22 Wash. 147, 60 Pac. 138; Cantwell v. City of Appleton, 71 Wis. 463, 37 N. W. 813; Laird v. Town of Otsego, 90 Wis. 25. 1303 Crenshaw County v. Fleming, 109 Ala. 554, 19 So. 906. If a claim is disallowed because the service was not performed in a required manner, the county cannot urge as a ground of defense in a subsequent action that the claim as presented for allowance was not sufficiently definite and specific. Kelso v. Teale, 106 Cal. 477, 39 Pac. 948; Christie v. Sonoma County Sup'rs, 60 Cal. 164; Epenter V. Montgomery County, 98 Iowa, 159; Atchison County Com'rs v. Tomlinson, 9 Kan. 167. The account or claim should be made out in separate items and the nature of each stated. McLean v. City of Boston, 180 Mass. 69, 61 N. E. 758. An insufficient notice may be followed by one which is sufficient under the statute and this will not be rendered invalid by the giving of the first and insufficient notice. Young v. Inhabitants of Douglas, 157 Mass. 383, 32 N. E. 354; Fortin v. Inhabitants of Easthampton, 142 Mass. 486; Gardner v. Newaygo County Sup'rs, 110 Mich. 94, 67 N. W. 1091; Tattan v. City of Detroit, 128 Mich. 650, 87 N. W. 894; State v. Smith, 89 Mo. 408; Chatters V. Coahoma County Sup'rs, 73 Miss. 351; Sowter v. Town of Grafton, 65 N. H. 207; In re Pinney, 17 Misc. 24, 40 N. Y. Supp. 716; Baldwin v. Freeholders of Middlesex, 58 N. J. Law, 285; In re White, 51 App. Div. 175, 64 N. Y. Supp. 726; Brownfield v. Houser, 30 Or. 534; Green V. Richland County Com'rs, 27 S. C. 9, 2 S. E. 618; State v. Knight, 31 S. C. 81, 9 S. E. 692; Pickens County v. Day, 45 S. C. 161; Reed v. Town of Calais, 48 Vt. 7; Nourse v. Town of Victory, 51 Vt. 275; Holcomb v. Town of Danby, 51 Vt. 428; Farnsworth v. Town of Mt. Holly, 63 Vt. 293. Mears v. City of Spokane, 22 Wash. 323. A notice that the injuries were caused by defects and obstructions in the sidewalk was held in this case insufficient where the action is to be taken.1304 These have for their purpose the examination of the account or claim having in view, first, the the injury was occasioned by an accumulation of snow and ice. Outagamie County v. Town of Greenville, 77 Wis. 165, 45 N. W. 1090; Cairncross v. Village of Pewaukee, 78 Wis. 66, 10 L. R. A. 473; Pier v. Oneida County, 93 Wis. 463; Miller v. Crawford County, 106 Wis. 210. The provisions of such a statute are mandatory and jurisdic tional. Gagan v. City of Janesville, 106 Wis. 662. A notice which alleges as the cause of the injury the stepping into a hole in a sidewalk will not support an action for damages resulting from the slipping of a loose board in a sidewalk. 1304 Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co. v. City of New York, 31 Fed. 312; Speer v. Kearney County Com'rs, 88 Fed. 749. A temporary board of commissioners may, under statutory authority, have power to audit claims on account of legitimate county expenses and to issue warrants in payment. Worthen v. Roots, 34 Ark. 356; Ames v. City and County of San Francisco, 76 Cal. 325, 18 Pac. 397. The rule will not apply to the salary of the gas inspector. Ex parte Widber, 91 Cal. 367, 27 Pac. 733; McFarland v. McCowen, 98 Cal. 329, 33 Pac. 113; Smith v. San Bernardino County Sup'rs, 99 Cal. 262. If officers refuse or neglect to perform the duty with which they are charged in this respect, a writ of mandamus will lie. Stevens v. Truman, 127 Cal. 155. The rule does not apply to the city and county of San Francisco. See, also, holding the same, Bloom v. City and County of San Francisco, 64 Cal. 503. State v. Babcock, 22 Neb. 38, 33 N. W. 711; Ragoss v. Cuming County, 36 Neb. 375, 54 N. W. 683. Action by such a body, unless appealed from, is conclusive and cannot be attacked collaterally except for fraud. Buck v. City of Lockport, 6 Lans. (N. Y. ) 251; People v. Fulton County Sup'rs, 74 Hun, 251, 26 N. Y. Supp. 610. Where an official body has the power to pass upon a particular claim, it can be referred by them to a committee of their number with power to act. People v. City of Amsterdam, 90 Hun, 488, 36 N. Y. Supp. 59. A sub-committee to whom a claim is referred should give the claimant an opportunity to present his case, offer evidence and answer objections made against the allowance of his claim. See, also, the case of Pickens County v. Day, 45 S. C. 161, 22 S. E. 772, which passes upon the right of a claimant to introduce evidence before an auditing board. People v. Saratoga County Sup'rs, 45 App. Div. 42, 60 N. Y. Supp. 1122. It is not necessary that an auditing committee examine witnesses on behalf of the claimant. They may rely on the personal knowledge of individual members. See, also, holding the same, People v. Vanderpoel, 35 App. Div. 73, 54 N. Y. Supp. 436. Adams v. Town of Wheatfield, 46 App. Div. 466, 61 N. Y. Supp. 738; Foster v. Angell, 19 R. I. 285, 33 Atl. 406; Tinsley v. Union County, 40 S. C. 276, 18 S. E. 794. A county board in passing on claims is not required to act or sit as a court in respect to the hearing or presentation of evidence. State v. Apple .1305 fact of a rendition of a service or the existence of a condition;1 and second, the correctness and accuracy of the amount of the claim and whether payments have been made and, if so, to what extent.1306 In short, the examination and audit has for its purpose, from what can be termed a bookkeeping and business standpoint, the correctness of the claim.1307 It is scarcely necessary to add that claims should be presented to the proper officials and that a presentment to those not legally charged with the performance of this public duty will not result in the establishment of a valid and legal claim as against a public corporation.1308 Time of allowance. The time of the allowance may also be important in ascertaining whether a similar result has been reached. A prompt adjustment and determination of claims should be and usually is required by statute; the purpose being by, 25 S. C. 100. A commission appointed to investigate and pass upon the indebtedness of a county, not regarded as a judicial body. 1305 Ingram v. Colgan, 106 Cal. 113, 38 Pac. 315, 39 Pac. 437, 28 L. R. A. 187; Hickey v. Oakland County Sup'rs, 62 Mich. 94; State v. Hinkson, 7 Mo. 353; James P. Hall Incorporated Co. v. Jersey City, 62 N. J. Eq. 489, 50 Atl. 603. 1306 Santa Cruz County v. McPherson, 133 Cal. 282, 65 Pac. 574; Morgan v. Buffington, 21 Mo. 549; State v. Cathers, 25 Neb. 250; State v. Moore, 37 Neb. 507; Maxwell v. Saluda County, 55 S. C. 382, 33 S. E. 457. 1307 People v. Delaware County Sup'rs, 45 N. Y. 196; People v. Vanderpoel, 35 App. Div. 73, 54 N. Y. Supp. 436; People v. Westchester County, 57 App. Div. 135, 67 N. Y. Supp. 981. The audit and allowance of an itemized claim without a consideration of each item is improper. People v. Fulton County Sup'rs, 74 Hun, (N. Y.) 251; People v. Town Auditors of Elmira, 82 N. Y. 80. 1308 Auditors of Cottonwood V. People, 38 Ill. App. 239. A town meeting has no power to audit a claim. Wesson v. Com., 144 Mass. 60, 10 N. E. 762; Inhabitants of Milford v. Com., 144 Mass. 64, 10 N. E. 516; Schneider v. Blades, 108 Mich. 3, 65 N. W. 559; Ryan v. Dakota County, 32 Minn, 138. After once having passed upon a claim, county commissioners exhaust their powers, and it cannot be reconsidered by them. See, also, as holding the same, Arthur v. Adam, 49 Miss. 404. But under a statutory provision in Nebraska it is held in State v. Baushausen, 49 Neb. 558, that the board can reconsider its action. Jones V. Lee County Sup'rs, (Miss.) 12 So. 341; State v. Merrell, 43 Neb. 575; Wilson v. State, 53 Neb. 113, 73 N. W. 456; Brown v. Grafton County, 69 N. H. 130, 36 Atl. 874; Baldwin v. Freeholders of Middlesex, 58 N. J. Law, 285, 33 Atl. 197; McCrea v. Chahoon, 54 Hun, 577, 8 N. Y. Supp. 88; Jackson v. Collins, 62 Hun, 618, 16 N. Y. Supp. 651; People v. City of Amsterdam, 90 Hun, 488, 36 N. Y. Supp. 59; People v. Trustees of Penn that suggested above in connection with the securing of evidence and the intelligent passing upon alleged claims. If a claim is allowed, the action is usually discretionary in its character and of quasi judicial nature,1309 but this does not place Yan, 2 App. Div. 28, 37 N. Y. Supp. 535; People v. Fielding, 36 App. Div. 401, 55 N. Y. Supp. 530; Jones v. Bladen County Com'rs, 73 N. C. 182. Coleman v. City of Fargo, 8 N. D. 69, 76 N. W. 1051. A requirement that the claim must be presented to the board of audit is sufficiently complied with by filing the claim with the city auditor. Whalen v. Bates, 19 R. I. 274, 33 Atl. 224. A claim presented to the mayor and one branch of the city council is not a sufficient compliance with statutes requiring the presentation of a claim to the city council. McKenna v. Bates (R. I.) 35 Atl. 580. Oshkosh Waterworks Co. v. City of Oshkosh, 109 Wis. 208, 85 N. W. 376; Walton v. McPhetridge, 120 Cal. 440, 52 Pac. 731. 1309 St. Paul Gas Light Co. v. City of St. Paul, 181 U. S. 142. The action of a city comptroller in auditing claims is advisory merely; and the passage of an ordinance prohibiting him from acting upon claims arising under the contract does not impair its obligation. Green v. Fresno County, 95 Cal. 329, 30 Pac. 544; Cahill v. Colgan (Cal.) 31 Pac. 614; Lewis v. Colgan (Cal.) 44 Pac. 1081. The performance of quasi judicial acts in connection with the examination and allowance of claims does not make an official body a judicial one. Alameda County, v. Evers, 136 Cal. 132, 68 Pac. 475. Action by the proper officials in auditing and allowing claims is not subject to collateral attack. Falk v. Strother, 84 Cal. 544; McFarland v. McCowen, 98 Cal. 329; Lamberson v. Jefferds, 118 Cal. 363; Garfield County Com'rs v. Leonard, 3 Colo. App. 576; Beeney v. Irwin, 6 Colo. App. 66, 39 Pac. 900; Fitzgerald v. Harms, 92 Ill. 372. Warren County Com'rs v. Gregory, 42 Ind. 32. "The board of county commissioners, in acting upon claims against the county act in a judicial capacity and their de cisions are conclusive and binding alike upon the county and the claimant unless appealed from, or unless an independent action is brought against the county when the claim has been disallowed." Myers v. Gibson, 147 Ind. 452; State v. Scates, 43 Kan. 330. An allowance in good faith under a mistake or error of the law of an illegal claim against a county is not ground for a proceeding against officials for a forfeiture of office. Barry County v. Manistee County Sup'rs, 33 Mich. 497; Arthur v. Adam, 49 Miss. 404. An order of the county board of supervisors allowing and directing the payment of a claim against the county has the force and effect of a judgment and is valid until reversed by an appellate court. It cannot be subsequently rescinded by such board. Boone County v. Armstrong, 23 Neb. 764, 37 N. W. 626; State v. Churchill, 37 Neb. 702; Richardson County v. Hull, 24 Neb. 536, 39 N. W. 608, affirmed 28 Neb. 810, 45 N. W. 53; State v. Vincent, 46 Neb. 408; Trites v. Hitch Π it beyond the re-review of judicial bodies, as a usual rule.1310 Claims against public corporations to be enforceable must be legally chargeable against them and neither the allowance, the audit, cock County, 53 Neb. 79, 73 N. W. 215; Taylor v. Davey, 55 Neb. 153, 75 N. W. 553; Dean V. Saunders County, 55 Neb. 759, 76 N. W. 450. A county board may reconsider its action in allowing or rejecting a claim upon giving proper notice to the parties affected. State v. La Grave, 22 Nev. 417, 41 Pac. 115. The audit and approval of a claim by the proper officers does not, however, establish it as a legal demand; the account must be properly chargeable in the first instance. People v. Board of Education of New York, 26 App. Div. 208, 49 N. Y. Supp. 915; Richmond County Sup'rs v. Ellis, 59 N. Y. 620. The allowance of an illegal claim is not, however, conclusive upon a subsequent official body. People v. Broome County Sup'rs, 65 N. Y. 222. An auditing board acts in a legislative, not in a judicial capacity, and may repeal or reconsider its action in allowing the claim when such action is ascertained to be incorrect. See, also, as holding the same, People v. Saratoga County Sup'rs, 45 App. Div. 42, 60 N. Y. Supp. 1122. Bank of Staten Island v. City of New York, 68 App. Div. 231, 74 N. Y. Supp. 284. Such an audit and allowance unless appealed from is conclusive and not subject to collateral attack. Boner v. Adams, 65 N. C. 639; Jones v. Lucas County Com'rs, 57 Ohio St. 189. The pow er possessed by a board of county commissioners under the statutes to pass upon claims against a county gives them no exclusive rights to allow an illegal claim. Bank of Idaho v. Malheur County, 30 Or. 420, 35 L. R. A. 141; State v. Ferriss (Tenn. Ch.) 56 S. W. 1039; Callaghan v. Salliway, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 239, 23 S. W. 837; State v. Headlee, 18 Wash. 220; Appel v. State, 9 Wyo. 187, 61 Pac. 1015. But see Foy v. Westchester County, 60 App. Div. 412, 69 N. Y. Supp. 887. But see the following: Huntington County Com'rs v. Heaston, 144 Ind. 583, 41 N. E. 457, 42 N. E. 651; De Kalb County Com'rs v. Auburn Foundry and Mach. Works, 14 Ind. App. 214, 42 N. E. 689; Carroll County Com'rs v. Pollard County, 17 Ind. App. 470 46 N. E. 1012; Cumberland County Sup'rs v. Edwards, 76 Ill. 544; Randolph County Com'rs v. Henry County Com'rs, 27 Ind. App. 378, 61 N. E. 612; Bean v. Carroll County Sup'rs, 51 Iowa, 53; Stamp v. Cass County, 47 Mich. 330; Abernathy v. Phifer, 84 N. C. 711, and Union County v. Hyde, 26 Or. 24, 37 Pac. 76. 1310 Cuthbert v. Lewis, 6 Ala. 262; Barnhill v. Woodard, 26 Ind. App. 482, 59 N. E. 1085; Morse v. Norfolk County, 170 Mass. 555, 49 N. E. 925; Hoxsey v. Woodruff, 39 N. J. Law, 72; Bott v. Wurts, 63 N. J. Law, 289; In re Town of Eastchester, 53 Hun, 181, 6 N. Y. Supp. 120. But this principle will not prevent a proceeding under the N. Y. laws providing "for the summary investigation of unlawful or corrupt expenditures by officials of towns or incorporated villages and for restraining the same." See People v. Sutphin, 53 App. Div. 613, 66 N. Y. |