Harris v. Bd. of Supervisors of S.F.

Citations

• 52 Cal. 553

Syllabus

<p>Statutory Construction. — The Act of March 4th, 1870, is not mandatory, hut permissive; and in solving the question, the whole and. not detached portions of it must he considered.</p> <p>Idem. — The words authorized and empowered to appropriate, allow, and order paid out of the General Eund,” etc., do not show an intention that the act should he mandatory.</p> <p>Idem. — Until the claim had heen allowed and ordered paid hy the Board of Supervisors, neither the Auditor nor Treasurer had authority to act.</p> <p>'Title of an Act. — While the title cannot be resorted to to control the body of a statute, yet in doubtful cases it may be referred to as an aid in construing doubtful clauses; and as the act in question is entitled “ An Act to confer additional powers,” etc., it may be inferred that additional powers only were intended to be given, and that it was not the intention of the Legislature to compel the Board of Supervisors to allow a claim without examination.</p>