124 Va. 616 | Va. | 1919
delivered the opinion of the court.
*620 “County Fund, the sum of ........ $617.91
Special Road Fund............... 140.19
Occoquan District ............... 100.19
Brentsville District Road Fund.... 35.49
Total .......................;. $893.78”
The commissioner refused to allow the treasurer credit for these items. The jury, by their verdict, also refused to allow credit for these items, and thereupon the exceptions of the treasurer to the report of the commsisioner were overruled, and a judgment for costs was entered against the treasurer. From this order of the circuit court, which also refused to set aside the verdict of the jury as contrary to the law and the evidence, this appeal was taken.
The controversy in this case is over the refusal of the board of supervisors to allow the treasurer of Prince William county credit for certain warrants paid by him and upon which the board denied liability. The appellant does not state in his petition the origin of said warrants, nor is the record full and clear on the subject, but the brief for the appellee gives a statement of the facts relating to this matter which was not controverted by the appellant in the oral argument, but in fact accepted and made the basis of his argument here, and which is no doubt correct. That statement is as follows: “Blank county warrants, in book form similar to check books, were filed in the clerk’s office of
“When the report which was reviewed by the circuit court was made, the commissioner allowed him credit for ¡all of the said forged warrants, except those upon which the payee’s name was forged. He denied him credit for those and those only which bore the forged indorsement of the payee. To this report the treasurer filed exceptions.
“The court held that said treasurer was not entitled to credit for the said warrants upon which the payee’s name had been forged, sustaining the report of the commissioner.”
It is not claimed by counsel for the appellant that the warrants in this case were legal warrants, but only that they were apparently legal, and because of the apparent legality the county should pay them.
We have not deemed it necessary to consider what was the effect of forging the endorsements of the payee on said warrants, as the illegality of the warrants themselves is an. insuperable obstacle to their payment. Other questions were raised in the case, but they were only incidental to the main question hereinbefore considered, and need not be noticed.
For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.
Affirmed.