Commissioner of Agriculture 89 



The applicant, James Smith, as sheriff of Erie County, appealed 

 from this decision to the Appellate Division of the Fourth Depart- 

 ment. The matter was argued at the May term of 1009 and 

 decided at the July term, 1900. The following is a copy of the 

 opinion of the court upon the question written by Mr. Justice 

 .Kruse : 



Supreme Court, 

 APPELLATE DIVISION — Fourth Department. 



V- 357189. 



The People of the State of New York, ex rel. 

 James Smith, ex-Sheriff of Erie County, 



Relator- Appellant, 

 vs. 

 Board of Supervisors of Erie County, 



Respondent. 



Argued at May Term, 1909. Decided at July Term, 1909. 



Present — Hon. P. B. McClennan, Presiding Justice; Spring, Williams, 

 Kruse, Robson, Associate Justices. 



Appeal by the relator from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in 

 the office of the clerk of the county of Erie, on the 14th day of April, 1909, 

 denying the application of the relator for a peremptory writ of mandamus 

 against the Board of Supervisors of the county of Erie, requiring the said 

 board to audit, allow and order a warrant drawn for the claim of the 

 relator. 



Layton H. Vogel, for Relator-Appellant. 



Thomas A. Sullivan, for Respondent. 



Kruse, J. — In November, 1908, the Commissioner of Agriculture laid a 

 quarantine upon Erie County and certain adjoining counties, against the 

 contagious and infectious animal disease known as foot and mouth disease, 

 and called upon the relator, the sheriff of Erie County, to enforce said quaran- 

 tine and furnish the necessary special deputy sheriffs to assist in the enforce- 

 ment of the orders and regulations of the commissioner, as the commissioner 

 had the right to do under the Agricultural Law. (Laws of 1S93, chapter 

 338, section 65, as amended by the Laws of 1900, chapter 118; Laws of 1901, 

 chapter 321.) 



Pursuant to such declaration and order, the sheriff did appoint deputy 

 sheriffs for that purpose, no other official duties being performed by them. 

 One of such deputies was John L. Grobe. The reasonable charge for the 

 services so performed by him was three dollars a day, which was paid by 

 the sheriff, the relator. The sheriff presented his claim therefor to the 

 auditor of the county, who submitted the same to the Board of Super- 

 visors, but the board declined and refused to audit the same, upon the 

 ground that it was not a charge against the county, but a State charge. 

 Thereafter the relator presented his claim to the Comptroller of the State, 

 who refused to audit the same upon the ground that it was not a State 

 charge, but a county charge. Thereupon the sheriff applied for a peremp- 



