This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of respondent in a mandamus proceeding.

H. S. Crocker Company, Inc., respondent, recovered a judgment in the amount of $3,427.33, against the County of Lake, and commenced this mandamus proceeding to compel payment of such judgment. A judgment and peremptory writ of mandate, filed July 30, 1940, ordered and directed that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Lake, the Treasurer of the County of Lake, and the Auditor of the County of Lake, pay to respondent the amount of said judgment mentioned above.

Respondent’s cause of action arose out of a contract entered into between respondent and the County of Lake. The date of the contract, the circumstances existing at the time of the execution thereof, and the subsequent proceedings of the parties are stated as follows:

This court reversed the judgment rendered in favor of the County of Lake, and the opinion of the court is reported in 4 Cal. App. (2d) 29 [ 40 Pac. (2d) 931 ]. In concluding that respondent, Crocker Company, Inc., was entitled to judgment for the unpaid balance of its claim in the sum of $1857.46, the court stated at page 31, as follows:

In answer to the contention that Crocker Company, Inc., could not complain of the lack of funds with which to meet the original contract, in that Crocker Company, Inc., had been paid $1664.22 on other claims which were incurred subsequent to the awarding of the furniture contract, the court said at page 32:

Section 3714, subdivision 5, of the Political Code, at the time of the awarding of the furniture contract, and at the time of suit upon the rejected claim, read as follows:

In construing the foregoing provision of the Political Code, the court, at page 33, said:

Subsequent to the close of the fiscal year in question, which ended June 30. 1930, there was then, and admittedly there is *191 now in the treasury of the County of Lake, sufficient money collected from taxes assessed and levied to provide income for such fiscal year to pay respondent’s claim and the present judgment against the county.

There being sufficient funds in the treasury of the County of Lake, which funds represent delinquent taxes assessed and levied for the fiscal year in question, our duty at this time is to determine the propriety of the order of the superior court which directed that respondent’s judgment be paid and satisfied from such funds.

The former opinion of this court, cited above, determines that respondent’s claim for the balance due on the furniture contract was based on a valid obligation against the County of Lake, and also concludes that the exhausting of the fund subsequent to the incurring of the obligation, even though respondent received some of the moneys which exhausted such fund, did not constitute a bar to respondent’s right to a judgment based on the previous valid furniture contract. The former judgment is res adjudicate/, as to both of these issues.

It further appears that under the provisions of section 3714 of the Political Code, the superior court did have power to order payment of the judgment in question out of the funds now in the treasury of the County of Lake. That section of the Political Code, subdivision 5, reads in part as follows:

The exception provides in effect that the board of supervisors may approve a claim, and that the county auditor may issue a warrant in excess of the budget appropriation upon an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or for an emergency.

Respondent cites two cases in support of the power of a superior court to order payment of a judgment under circumstances such as exist in the present ease. Both of these *192 cases, by virtue of the language of the opinions, uphold the propriety of the orders, basing the power of the court to act on the exception to subdivision 5, of section 3714, supra. In the case of Niceley v. County of Madera, 111 Cal. App. 731 [ 296 Pac. 306 ], a sheriff incurred expenses in excess of the amount allowed to that office by the county budget for the fiscal year. A claim for the items in excess of the budget provision was filed with the board of supervisors and disallowed, on the ground that the expenditures were unnecessary, and also on the further ground that the fund allowed for the sheriff had been exhausted. The trial court found the expenses proper and necessary, and further found that the expenses constituted a legal charge against the County of Madera, and awarded judgment, as prayed for. This judgment was affirmed on appeal, and in so doing, Justice Plummer, in construing subdivision 5 of section 3714, stated, at page 735 of the opinion, as follows:

This rule in the Niceley case has been reiterated by this court in Barry v. County of Glenn, 42 Cal. App. (2d) 76 [ 108 Pac. (2d) 81 ].

The construction of subdivision 5 of section 3714, supra, by the court in the two cases cited above, compels the conclusion that the Superior Court of Lake County did have the power to make the order in question, and there being sufficient funds on hand representing money collected from taxes assessed and levied for the fiscal year in question, the County of Lake was properly ordered to pay its obligation.

The judgment is affirmed.

Pullen, P. J., and Thompson, J., concurred.