Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/283

 not think that it was improper to permit respondent, after he had given all the facts from his standpoint, to testify that he did not consent. The objection is argued on the theory that, on his own testimony, respondent had consented as a matter of law. We have already ruled that, such was not the case. The other assignments require no notice further than that they have already received. No error in the record has been shown, and the judgment below is accordingly affirmed. All concur.

(55 N. W. Rep. 593.)

Mandamus—Illegal Claim.

The writ of mandamus is never awarded to aid in the collection of an illegal claim.

Expenditure in Excess of Revenue—Illegal.

The county commissioners of Eddy County allowed the bill of the relator, and directed a warrant to be drawn therefor in payment for corridor and cells put up in the county jail by relator at the request of such board. The question of such expenditure was never submitted to the voters of the county, and the amount of such bill. and proposed warrant was greater than could be paid out of the annual revenue of the county for the current year. The defendant as auditor, refused to attest and certify such warrant, and the District Court refused to award the writ of mandamus compelling him todo so. Held, that the ruling of the court below was proper, as the expenditure would have been illegal, under § 607, Comp. Laws.

Assent of Voters—Benefits—Acceptance.

The voters not having assented to such expenditure, the commissioners were without lawful authority to make the same, and hence their acceptance of the benefits would not operate to bind the county.

Appeal from District Court, Eddy County; Rose, J.

Application by the Diebold Safe & Lock Company for writ of mandate to Fred O. Getchell, county auditor of Eddy County. Application denied. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Edgar W. Camp, (E. B. Graves of Counsel) for appellant.