Murphy v. County Commissioners
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This action was commenced in the District Court of Pam-sey county, to recover the value of certain services, alleged to have been rendered at the instance of the defendants.
Read the full summary
This action was commenced in the District Court of Pam-sey county, to recover the value of certain services, alleged to have been rendered at the instance of the defendants. The answer, for a second defense, sets out, substantially, that the plaintiffs presented their claim for the services mentioned in the complaint to the Board of County Commissioners of said Steele county; that a portion of said claim was allowed by said board, and a portion disallowed, and that no appeal was taken from the decision of theboard.. The plaintiffs demurred to this second defence. The demurrer was sustained by…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
MoMillaN, J.
The question presented in this case is, whether a person having a claim against a county, which has been presented to the Board of Commissioners of such county, and considered and audited by them, and a portion of said claim allowed, and the balance disallowed by said board, can commence an original action upon said claim against such county in any of the courts of the State ; or is he restricted, in any further proceedings upon said claim, to the mode of appeal from the decision of the Board of County Commissioners in Secs. 81, 82, Title 2, Ch. 8, Genl. Stat., p.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brady v. . Supervisors of New-YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- Bingham v. Board of Supervisors of Winona CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1863
3Cited by4 opinions
- Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. MorrisCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
- Guilder v. Town of OtsegoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1873
- Board of Com'rs of Atoka Co. v. CypertSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- Park County v. Jefferson CountySupreme Court of Colorado · 1889