People ex rel. McDonough v. Board of Supervisors
Opinion of the Court
Tbis is a proceeding by mandamus to compel tbe board of super visors of Queens county to audit and allow a claim of tbe relator for $1,333.80. Tbe claim comes in tbis way: There was a bridge to be constructed at Blissvilie, over Newtown creek, which there forms the boundary between tbe counties of Kings and Queens, and tbe bridge was to be made and paid for by tbe two counties, each paying one-half of the expense. Tbe relator was appointed tbe supervising engineer of the work, and there is some obscurity respecting tbe terms of his employment and tbe amount of bis compensation. He claims that be was to receive five per cent on tbe entire cost of tbe work, and tbe defendant claims that be was to receive five per cent on tbe contract price of tbe work, to be done in pursuance of tbe plans and specifications. In tbe view now to be taken, it will not become necessary to determine that question. Tbe relator was employed to prepare plans and specifications for tbe building of the bridge, and to superintend the work in Septem
The trial court held very properly that the relator was not entitled to extra compensation for delay in the completion of the work, nor to any allowance or commission on the cost of constructing the exterior approaches to the bridge.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
The relator held a claim against the county of Queens which was presented in due form, by him, to the board of supervisors of that county. A large portion of the claim was rejected and the bill was audited at the sum of $165.25 ; this bill so audited was assigned to one Anthony Miller, and the treasurer of Queens county was by the terms of the assignment directed to pay the said sum to the assignee; the amount was subsequently paid by the county treasurer to Miller, who gave his receipt therefor; the assignment and receipt for this claim estop the relator' from maintaining this proceeding.
By accepting the amount of the audit, the relator waived his right to further prosecute his claim.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.