Opinion
April Term, 1896.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
We think the order should be affirmed. Apart from the alleged audit, the relator's claim was unauthorized in its origin, was barred by the Statute of Limitations, and was not above suspicion as to its merits. The audit, solely upon which the relator relies, was not intended to be final in case upon further investigation the supervisor should discover valid objections to the claim. The supervisor reported his objections, and the board, eight days after the audit, rescinded it. If any irregularity occurred, it relates as much to the audit as to its rescission. The rescinding was the final action of the board, and no audit remains. The relator objects that the board had no right to rescind the audit. The answer is (1) that the board did not intend its audit to be final, but intended to retain possession of the matter so as to rescind if the facts to be discovered should seem to require it; (2) that the same board that audits may, before it parts with possession of the matter, rescind. ( People ex rel. Smith v. Board of Town Auditors of Delhi, 5 Hun, 647; People ex rel. Hotchkiss v. Supervisors, 65 N.Y. 222.) The cases to the opposite effect chiefly relate to the audit by a subsequent board of a bill rejected upon its merits in the absence of fraud or collusion by a previous board in a case where the allowance or its amount depends upon the judgment and discretion of the board. ( Osterhoudt v. Rigney, 98 N.Y. 222, 235; People ex rel. Supervisors v. City of Kingston, 101 id. 82.) The action of the first board in such case is final The order is affirmed, with costs. All concurred.