Appeal from the Fourth District.

Suit upon four warrants drawn by the Auditor of San Francisco county upon the Treasurer thereof. Three of the warrants were drawn in 1855, and one in January, 1856, all in form similar to the one of which the following is a copy, with similar indorsements :

“Auditor’s Office, San Francisco, July 5th, 1855.

“ County Auditor’s Office : No. 361.

“ Treasurer "of San Francisco county will pay to the order of J. D. Musgrove the sum of $1,000, as ordered by the Board of Supervisors, for making county maps.

[Signed.] “ James Grant,

“ $1,000. County Auditor.”

Across the face of the warrant is written :

San Francisco, July 14th, 1855.

“ Not paid for want of funds.

“ George W. Green, County Treasurer.

“ A. E. Shannon, Deputy.”

The complaint avers that under the Act of April 29th, 1851, (Stat. 1851, 322) the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco county had power, with the consent of a majority of its members, to examine, settle and allow all accounts chargeable against said county ; and that said Board “ did examine, settle, allow and order to be paid a certain claim and account in favor of J. D. Musgrove against said county; and, in pursuance of said order, on or about the twenty-sixth of February, 1855, the said county promised to pay to said Musgrove $1,000, for value received, and said county, by James Grant, then County Auditor, made and drew the certain warrant or order of said county in writing,” dated, etc., and directed to the County Treasurer, requiring him to pay the sum of $1,000, as ordered by said Board, and delivered the same to said Musgrove, whereby said county “ became liable and promised to pay said Musgrove ” said sum; that Musgrove afterwards “ indorsed said warrant or order and delivered the same to plaintiffs for a valuable consideration; ” that payment was demanded and refused.

The complaint counts upon the other warrants in the same way, alleging plaintiffs to be the owners and holders thereof; that defendants are indebted to them thereupon in the sum of, etc.; asking judgment for the amount.

The answer, in substance, denies that the county is liable, or that the Auditor was authorized to draw his warrants, or that they constitute any evidence of indebtedness against defendants.

On the trial, plaintiff relied upon his warrants, which were introduced in evidence, and upon the orders of the Board of Supervisors directing the warrants to be drawn.

Defendants moved for a nonsuit on the ground, mainly, that the warrants were not negotiable instruments or bills of exchange, and not evidence of any indebtedness on the part of the county. Motion denied, and the cause then submitted, and judgment subse quently rendered for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.