Harris

argued that the act was not mandatory, and that the Board had the right to examine and reject the claim; and that in such a case mandamus would not lie.

In People ex rel. The San Francisco Gas Company v. The Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, ( 11 Cal. 42 ) this Court held that a mandamus directing the Supervisors to proceed and audit the claims of the relator did not necessarily require of the Board to allow the account; that they had a discretion in respect to their action in that regard, and though they were compelled to proceed to act on the subject-matter of the claim, yet the mandamus does not control or prescribe the mode or determine the result of their action.

In Tilden v. The Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County, ( 41 Cal. 68 ) this Court held that when a Board of Supervisors have acted on a claim, either by allowing or disallowing it, a writ of mandate will not be issued to reverse or review its judgment.

Nowhere, in any of these cases, do we find any authority for the position assumed by respondent, that under an act of a legislature, in which language similar to that in the Act of March 4th, 1870, is used, it is the imperative duty…