The defendant in error was the plaintiff in the court below in an action against Bingham county, a municipal corporation of the state of Idaho, to recover a money judgment for the principal and interest alleged to be due on certain warrants theretofore drawn on the general fund of the county, and of which the plaintiff alleged it was the owner. The complaint, as amended, set out the number, date, and amount of each of the warrants sued on, to whom issued, on what fund drawn, the date each was presented to the treasurer of the county for payment, and the fact and date of the treasurer’s refusal of payment. The complaint contains no allegation concerning the basis of any of the warrants; it being based solely upon the alleged ownership by the plaintiff, at the time of the commencement of the action, of each of the warrants, upon which it is alleged there is due, in the aggregate, the principal sum of $7,238.09, with interest at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum from the date of their respective presentations. "The -amended complaint contains the further allegations:

*17 A demurrer to the complaint as amended having been overruled by the court below, the defendant county filed an. answer, in which it admitted that, within the period stated in the complaint—

The answer denies that either of the warrants so issued was delivered in accordance with law, or that there is anything due from the defendant on any of them, and alleges that not one of them specifies or in any manner indicates when the liability for which it was drawn accrued, nor does ány one of them recite that it was issued for value received, and that “most of them insufficiently specify the liability for which they were drawn,” and that—

The answer denies that any of the warrants sued on could have been legally paid by the defendant, or that any money could have been legally raised for their payment. And for a separate defense the defendant alleges that, at all the times mentioned in the amended complaint and in the defendant’s answer thereto, the banking firm of C. Bunting & Co., the payee of certain of the warrants sued on, was a corporation doing a general banking business in the town of Blackfoot, in the defendant county, and transacted business at no other place; that on or about the 15th day of February, 1897, in an action then pending in the district court of the Fifth Judicial District of Idaho, in and for Bingham county, wherein the First National Bank of Pocatello was plaintiff, and Bunting & Co. defendant, one Thum was duly appointed receiver of the defendant company, and immediately qualified as such, and entered upon the discharge of his duties, and ever since has remained the receiver of that company; that at the time of such appointment the firm of Bunting & Co. was wholly insolvent, and has remained so ever since; that those' of the warrants sued on numbered, respectively, 45, 522, 544, 3, 9, 25,. *18 32, 41, 61, 62, 63, 28, 34, 35, 42, 44, 200, and 202, were originally delivered to Bunting & Co., and were its property, and that all of the others of the warrants sued on were transferred and delivered, to that company soon after their several dates of issue; that for more than a year immediately preceding the appointment of the receiver mentioned, and at the time of such appointment, and for a long time thereafter, Bunting & Co. was the owner of all of the warrants sued on, and of any indebtedness evidenced thereby, and that neither Bunting & Co. nor the receiver ever voluntarily parted with the title thereto, and that such title was never divested at all until after the 1st day of July, 1897, and then only by process of law; that at all of the said times the firm of Bunting & Co. was indebted to the defendant county in an amount of money in excess of the aggregate amount of the face value, including interest, of the warrants sued on, which indebtedness from Bunting & Co. at the time of the appointment of the receiver exceeded $40,000, and has ever since been in excess of $20,000; that the said indebtedness arose by reason of the deposit with Bunting & Co. by the sheriff, treasurer, and tax collector of the defendant county, from time to time, of moneys of t-he defendant, upon the agreement by that firm to pay over the same to the defendant at any time upon demand; that Bunting & Co. failed and refused to pay over the moneys so deposited, although frequently requested so to do, but, on the contrary, commingled the defendant’s moneys so received with its own funds and general deposits, and appropriated the same to its own use, but at all times acknowledged its indebtedness to the defendant county, and the amount thereof; that said indebtedness of Bunting & Co. to- the defendant county has at all times—

The case was tried by the court without a jury, on an agreed statement of facts, upon which th.e court made findings of fact, and from which it drew the conclusion that all of the warrants substantially ■complied with- the laws of Idaho; that the plaintiff was the owner and holder of each of them; that all of them, except the three numbered, respectively, 55, 70, and 86, were valid, subsisting obligations ■of the defendant county, to which there was no valid defense, set-off, ■or “compensation,” and on which there was due the plaintiff the aggregate principal sum of $7,060.96, with interest. Judgment for the •plaintiff followed.

The second and third findings of fact are as follows:

The court found that the warrants numbered, respectively, 554, 41, 62, 63, 34, and 202, and the claims represented thereby, were originally the property of C. Bunting 81 Co., and that those warrants were originally transferred to that firm, and that all of the other warrants sued on were transferred to it soon after their issue. It was found by the court below that warrants No. 55, for $25, issued to D. D. Wright for legal services, No. 70, for $49.95, issued to H. W. Kiefer for commissions as collector, and a portion of warrant No. 86, amounting to $102.18, issued to S. G. Crowley, were issued in payment of claims which were not a legal charge against the defendant county, and are void, and that warrants No. 61, for $62.60, in favor of Bunting & Co., and No. 41, for $70.40, in favor of the superintendent of the insane asylum, “were issued upon statements or claims not verified by any persons, but otherwise in regular form, and acted upon and allowed by the board of commissioners in regular manner.” The court below further found that on the 15th day of February, 1897, the firm of Bunting & Co. was insolvent, and that on or about that day, in an action then pending in the.district court of the Fifth Judicial District of Idaho, in and for the county of Bingham, wherein the First National Bank of Pocatello was plaintiff, and Bunting & Co. defendant, one C. E. Thum was duly appointed general receiver of Bunting & Co., and immediately qualified as such receiver, and entered upon the discharge of his duties as such, and has so remained ever since; that on or about December 1, 1896, Bunting & Co. assigned and delivered all of the warrants mentioned to the Chase National Bank of New York as collateral security for a loan made by that bank to Bunting & Co.; that on or about February 24, 1897, all of the said warrants, then being in the possession of the Chase National Bank, were attached in the state of New York at the suit of the American Exchange National Bank of New York against Bunting & Co. upon an assigned claim to it made by Bunting & Co.; that under and by virtue of an execution sale made on the 16th day of July, 1897, upon a judgment entered *20 in that action, the plaintiff in the court below, the First National Bank of Ogden, Utah, acquired the title of Bunting & Co. to all of the warrants mentioned, and ever since then has had the possession of the warrants.

The ninth finding of the court below is as follows:

The court below further found that between the ist day of December, 1896, and the 15th day of February, 1897, the tax collectors, treasurers, and sheriff of the defendant county deposited in their own names in the bank of Bunting & Co. at Blackfoot, Idaho>, large sums of the defendant county’s money theretofore collected by those officers, aggregating $44,340.95, and which Bunting & Co. knew at the time of such deposits was the money of the defendant county; that thereafter each of the officers mentioned, having presented his claim in the course of the administration of the insolvent bank’s affairs, received from the receiver thereof dividends aggregating 20 per cent, of their respective deposits; that subsequently the defendant county filed a petition in the action in which the receiver of Bunting & Co. was appointed and acting,, against the receiver, in which—

It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff in error, first, that, by reason of the laws of Idaho, an action to recover a money judgment on county warrants cannot be maintained; second, that all of the warrants sued on are void, for the reason that not one of them *21 states when the liability for which it was- issued accrued; and, third, that the entire indebtedness, if any, represented by the warrants, is more than “compensated” by the indebtedness to the defendant county of Bunting & Co., from whom the plaintiff below obtained the warrants.

Since the complaint counts only on the warrants, if, as is contended on behalf of the plaintiff in error, they are void upon their face, in failing to state matter made essential by the state statute, it will not be necessary to consider or determine either of the other points made. It may be and is readily conceded that, if the omitted matter is mere matter of form, its omission is of no consequence.

It is provided by the state of Idaho, in section 1759 of its Revised Statutes of 1887, that the boards of commissioners in their respective counties shall have jurisdiction and power, under such limitations and restrictions as are prescribed by law:

Section 1766 provides:

By section 1780 it is provided:

The next section is as follows:

Sections 2005, 2006, and 2009 are as follows:

And by section 1840 the county treasurer is required to, among other things, “disburse the county moneys only on county warrants issued by the county auditor; based on orders of the board of commissioners, or as otherwise provided by law.”

Sections 4050 to 4056, inclusive, prescribe the periods for the commencement of actions other than for the recovery of real property; and by section 4057 it is provided that “actions on claims against a county which have been rejected by the board of commissioners, must be commenced within six months after the first rejection thereof by such board.”

It is thus seen that the state of Idaho has by statute conferred upon the board of commissioners of the county the power to, among other things, examine, settle, and allow all accounts legally chargeable against the county, and order warrants to be drawn on the county treasurer therefor, and has expressly declared that all such warrants “must distinctly specify the liability for which they are drawn, and when it accrued.” Is any court justified in treating such language as merely directory? We think not. It is well settled that, if the statute under which a municipal corporation is organized and acts prescribes a particular mode in which the property of the corporation shall be disposed of, that mode must be pursued. Dillon on Municipal Corporations (4th Ed.) §§ 463, 578, and 563. The state of Idaho, as has been seen, authorized the board of commissioners of the defendant county to allow only legal claims against it, within which claims barred by its statute of limitations would not come. Carroll v. Siebenthaler, 37 Cal. 193 . And it has been held that, even though the governing board of a county should allow illegal .claims, it is the duty of the auditor to refuse to draw warrants therefor, and, if warrants are drawn, it is the duty of the treasurer to refuse to pay them. Linden v. Case, 46 Cal. 171 ; Merriam v. Board of Supervisors of Yuba County (Cal.) 14 Pac. 137 ; Trinity County v. McCammon, 25 Cal. 121 .

In McCormick v. Bay City, 23 Mich. 457 , it was held that á city treasurer was not entitled to credit for moneys paid upon warrants which were not drawn in accordance with the provisions of the charter. There was therefore good and substantial reason for the requirement of the statute in question that all warrants issued upon claims allowed against the county “must distinctly specify the liability for which they are drawn, and when it accrued.” Language só imperative and mandatory does not, in our opinion, admit of its being held 'merely directory. And such was the holding of the Supreme Court of California in the case of Merriam v. The Board of Supervisors of Yuba *23 County, supra, in respect to the provision of the county government act of that state, declaring that “all warrants must distinctly specify the liability for which they are drawn, and when it accrued.” The same opinion was also expressed by Judge Field in Argenti v. San Francisco, 16 Cal. 276 , on the petition for rehearing in that case, where he said:

Smeltzer v. White, 92 U. S. 390 , 23 L. Ed. 508 , was an action against the counties of O’Brien, Buena Vista, and Clay, of the state of Iowa, growing out of certain warrants purporting to have been issued by those counties, payment of which was refused. It appeared that prior to i860 the county judge had the management of the business of .the county, with the usual powers and jurisdiction of county commissioners, and the county funds were authorized to be paid out by the treasurer only upon warrants issued by him. Revision 1860, §§ 241, 243, 360. It was made his duty “to audit all claims against the county; to draw and seal with the county seal all warrants on the treasurer for money to be paid' out of the county treasury.” Code 1851, § 106. The treasurer was authorized to pay only warrants thus drawn and sealed. The language of the statute was, “The treasurer shall disburse the same [the county money] on warrants drawn and signed by the county judge, and sealed with the county seal, and not otherwise.” In i860 the powers and duties of the county judge in this respect were transferred to a county board of supervisors (Act March 22, 1860; Rev. St. § 312, et seq.); and the clerk of the district court was constituted their clerk, and required to sign all orders issued by the board. The Supreme Court said:

Again the court in that case said:

It is true that in Smeltzer v. White the required seal of the county constituted a part of the execution of the warrants, but we think that no very substantial distinction can be made between such a case and one where the warrants omit other matter made by the statute essential to their validity.

The present action being based solely upon the alleged warrants, and as they omit matter made essential by the statute of the state under which they purported to have been issued, they must be adjudged invalid. Being void, they were not the subject of ratification, and were unaffected by the resolution of the board of commissioners of the county embodied in the ninth finding of the court below. Dillon on Municipal Corporations (4th Ed.) § 465.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded to the court below, with instructions to enter judgment for the defendant on the findings, with costs.