nor the payment of an illegal claim, can create any legal liability.1311 The power possessed by certain officials or official bodies to pass upon and allow or reject claims presented in the proper manner would necessarily include the minor right of compromising1312the claim, and the amount as finally agreed upon becomes then a legal claim against the corporation which can be paid through the levy of a tax for this special purpose or from general funds.1313 Supp. 49; Osterhoudt v. Rigney, 98 People v. People, 81 Hun. 383, 30 N. Y. Supp. 878; People v. Ulster County Sup'rs, 32 Hun (N. Y.) 607; People v. Feeney, 43 App. Div. 376, 60 N. Y. Supp. 103. But see State v. Warren County Com'rs, 136 Ind. 207, 35 N. E. 1100, where it is held mandamus will lie to compel county commissioners to approve a proper claim of the township trustee for services rendered, and also People v. Clinton County Sup'rs, 64 Hun, 636 19 N. Y. Supp. 642. 1311 Linden v. Case, 46 Cal. 172; Cumberland County Sup'rs v. Edwards, 76 Ill. 544; Richmond County Sup'rs v. Ellis, 59 N. Y. 620; Municipal Security Co. v. Baker County, 33 Or. 338, 54 Pac. 174; Endion Imp. Co. v. Evening Tel. Co., 104 Wis. 432. See, also, authorities cited under last note, § 478. 1312 St. Charles St. R. Co. v. Board of Assessors, 51 La. Ann. 459, 25 So. 90; Campbell v. Inhabitants of Upton, 113 Mass. 67; O'Brien v. City of New York, 25 Misc. 219, 55 N. Y. Supp. 50; City of Austin v. McCall (Tex. Civ. App.) 67 S. W. 192. But a contract for the compromise of claims entirely void cannot be enforced. But see Com. v. Tilton, 23 Ky. L. R. 753, 63 S. W. 602, as holding that under Ky. Const. § 52, a county court has no power to compromise any part of the indebtedness with a sheriff of the county. City of Louisville v. Louisville R. Co. 24 Ky. L. R. 538, 68 S. W. 840. 1313 Vose v. Inhabitants of Frankfort, 64 Me. 229; Endion Imp. Co. v. Evening Tel. Co., 104 Wis. 432. The compromise of an illegal claim cannot create any liability. Again, it is urged that the matter was compromised. The statute prescribed certain fees for each publication made according to law. The right of the publisher to compensation for his work does not rest upon contract, but results by operation of law. He is entitled to the fees so. prescribed and no more. His right thereto cannot be increased or diminished by contract. * * * There can be no compromise because there is nothing to compromise. The county board had no right or power to squander or give away the money of the county. In their administrative capacity the members of the county board act and exercise their power as public or special agents and they cannot exceed the power conferred upon them by law. They cannot bind the county by allowing. and ordering a claim to be paid not legally chargeable to it. They have not unlimited choice as to the objects to which the money of the public shall be applied. They The compromise of a disputed claim involves the exercise of judicial and discretionary powers, and, if these are exercised in good faith, such action cannot be reviewed by the courts.1314 § 491. Rejection of claims and appeal. The rejection1315 of a claim by the proper officials gives the claimant, usually, within a designated period of time, the right to appeal either to some subordinate legislative or executive body or official1316 or a judicial body proper.' 1317 To authorize an ap are as strictly bound by the law as are the other defendants and bound to take notice of it and act within its provisions. Hence, it follows that the pretended claim of compromise has no foundation to rest upon. Any allowance of the publishers' claims beyond the limits herein before named was wholly unauthorized and illegal and their payment was properly restrained." 1314 Placer County v. Campbell (Cal.) 11 Pac. 602; Hendricks v. -Chautauqua County Com'rs, 35 Kan. 483; Webb v. Bell, 22 App. Div. 314, 47 N. Y. Supp. 989. The facts of this case considered and held not a compromise but an attempt at auditing a claim. 1315 Outagamie County v. Town of Greenville, 77 Wis. 171; Drinkwine v. City of Eau Claire, 83 Wis. 428; Miller v. Crawford County, 106 Wis. 210. Where an account is not itemized as required by statute and for this reason is not considered by the county board of supervisors, their action is not such as will authorize an appeal. "The manifest purpose of the statute requiring such statement was to protect the public funds and taxpayers of the county from the reckless, negligent or improvident action of county boards. We must hold that the language of the statute is mandatory and must be substantially complied with. Where the statement filed with the county board is insufficient or indefinite and uncertain, the board may, undoubtedly, require it to be made more definite and certain or to conform to the requirements of the statute before allowing or disallowing it in whole or in part. This court has held that where the account filed is in form and substance as required by the statute, it is sufficient as a complaint on appeal to the circuit court. The converse of the proposition would seem to be that if it is not, substantially, as required by the statute, then it would be insufficient as a complaint. In the case at bar the return states that 'the bills were disallowed for the reason that the bills were not properly itemized.' Notwithstanding the use of the word 'disallowed,' yet it is obvious from its connection with what follows that the board did not pass, nor attempt to pass, upon the merits of the bills,-much less to disallow the same, but merely suspended action until such bills should be properly itemized. In other words, the bills not having been disallowed in whole or in part there was nothing to appeal from." 1316 Falk v. Strother, 84 Cal. 544; Twohy v. Granite County Com'rs, peal, however, it is necessary that the action of officers from whom the appeal is to be taken should be final.131 1318 Upon an ap 17 Mont. 461. Irregularities or informalities in the service of notices of appeal may be waived by the party affected. People v. Livingston County Sup'rs, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 118; Monroe Bank v. State, 26 Hun (N. Y.) 581; People v. Sutphin, 53 App. Div. 613, 66 N. Y. Supp. 49; Chaphe v. State, 117 N. Y. 511. 1317 Jeffersonian Pub. Co. v. Hilliard, 105 Ala. 576, 17 So. 112; Nelson v. Merced County, 122 Cal. 644; Gunnison County Com'rs v. McCormick, 1 Colo. App. 319, 29 Pac. 25; Randell v. City of Bridgeport, 62 Conn. 440; Ada County v. Gess, 4 Idaho, 611, 43 Pac. 71. The county itself may appeal from the action of a board of county commissioners in allowing a claim. Clinton County Com'rs v. Hill, 122 Ind. 215, 23 N. E. 779; Posey County Com'rs v. Stock, 11 Ind. App. 167; Fountain County Com'rs v. Wood, 35 Ind. 70; Blackford County Com'rs v. Shrader, 36 Ind. 87; Floyd County Com'rs v. Scott, 19 Ind. App. 227, 49 N. E. 395. County commissioners having disallowed a claim on appeal have the power to consent to the entry of a judgment against the county. Wright v. Caskey, 26 Ind. App. 520, 60 N. E. 320; Marvin v. Fremont County, 11 Iowa, 463; Sterling v. Inhabitants of Cumberland County, 91 Me. 316; Van Wert v. School Dist. No. 8, 100 Mich. 332, 58 N. W. 1119; Dollar v. City of Marquette, 123 Mich. 184, 82 N. W. 33; Murphy v. Steele County Com'rs, 14 Minn. 67 (Gil. 51); Taylor v. Marion County, 51 Miss. 731; Marion County v. Woulard, 77 Miss. 343; is Twohy v. Granite County Com'rs, 17 Mont. 461. Where a claim allowed in part, an appeal may be taken from that action in respect to which the plaintiff feels aggrieved. Town of Plymouth v. Grafton County, 68 N. H. 361; Fuller v. Colfax County, 33 Neb. 716, 50 N. W. 1044; State v. Cornell, 36 Neb. 143, 76 N. W. 459; Sheibley v. Dixon County, 61 Neb. 409, 85 N. W. 399; Foy v. Westchester County, 168 N. Y. 180. In the case of a disallowance of a claim, review by certiorari is the only remedy.. Worth v. Stewart, 122 N. C. 258; Shattuck v. Kincaid, 31 Or. 379; Jennings v. Abbeville County, 24 S. C. 543; Civic Federation v. Salt Lake County, 22 Utah 6, 61 Pac. 222. Appeal, not mandamus, is the proper remedy upon rejection by the county commissioners of a claim against the county. Com. v. Beaumarchais, 3 Call (Va.) 122; Botetourt County v. Burger, 86 Va.. 530, 10 S. E. 264; Bunch's Ex'r v. Fluvanna County, 86 Va. 452, 10 S. E. 532; Morath v. Gorham, 11 Wash. 577, 40 Pac. 129. The right of appeal granted to persons interested in a claim does not include taxpayers generally. Sheel v. City of Appleton, 49 Wis. 125; Pier v. Oneida County, 93 Wis. 463, 67 N. W. 702; Land, Log & Lumber Co. v. McIntyre, 100 Wis. 245; Jones v. Washburn County, 106 Wis. 391. 1318 Gunnison County Com'rs v. McCormick, 1 Colo. App. 319, 29 Pac. 25; Clyne v. Bingham County, 7 Idaho, 75, 60 Pac. 76. An appeal will lie only from the action of the board as a whole on the entire peal it is necessary that there should be a hearing or trial de novo claim. State v. Slocum, 34 Neb. 368, 51 N. W. 969; People v. Westchester County, 53 App. Div. 339, 65 N. Y. Supp. 707; Pickens County v. Day, 45 S. C. 161, 22 S. E. 772. 1319 Mahoney v. Shoshone County Com'rs, 8 Idaho, 375, 69 Pac. 108. Upon such an appeal it is here held that there must be a hearing and trial de novo. See, also, as holding the same, Clyne v. Bingham County, 7 Idaho, 75, 60 Pac. 76, and Garneau v. Moore, 39 Neb. 791, 58 N. W. 438. Box Butte County v. Noleman, 54 Neb. 239; Gage County v. George E. King Bridge Co., 58 Neb. 827, 80 N. W. 56; Brown v. Plott, 129 N. C. 272, 40 S. E. 45; Monroe Waterworks Co. v. City of Monroe, 110 Wis. 11, 85 N. W. 685. rett v. Stutsman County, 4 N. D. 1321 Armstrong v. Truitt, 53 Ark. 1320 Wasson v. Hoffman, 4 Colo. App. 491; Decatur County Com'rs v. Wheeldon, 15 Ind. 147; Maxwell v. Fulton County Com'rs, 119 Ind. 20, 23, 19 N. E. 617, 21 N. E. 453; Blackford County Com'rs v. Shrader, 36 Ind. 87; Posey County Com'rs v. Stock, 11 Ind. App. 163, 36 N. E. 928; Armstrong v. Tama County, 34 Iowa, 309; Curtis v. Cass County, 49 Iowa, 421; Springer v. City of Detroit, 102 Mich. 300; Murphy v. Steele County Com'rs, 14 Minn. 67, (Gil. 51); Waltz v. Ormsby County, 1 Nev. 370; Bar to the proper official.1323 Statutory rights and remedies are construed strictly, and if not availed of or used in the manner required by the party to whom they have been given, he cannot complain.1324 If the proper steps and proceedings have not been instituted and at the time required, boards of review or official bodies cannot be directed or compelled by writs of mandamus or other process to perform their usual duties.1 $492. Time and manner of payment. 1325 Time of payment. Upon the allowance of a claim,1326 its liquidation may further depend upon other charter or statutory pro An auditing board cannot be compelled by mandamus to re-examine a claim already acted upon. Cook County v. Ryan, 51 Ill. App. 190; Sterling v. Inhabitants of Cumberland County, 91 Me. 316, 39 Atl. 1003; Endriss v. Chippewa County, 43 Mich. 317; Scott County v. Leftwich, 145 Mo. 26, 46 S. W. 963; Klein v. Smith County Sup'rs, 58 Miss. 540; Sioux County v. Jameson, 43 Neb. 265; Gage County v. Hill, 52 Neb. 444, 72 N. W. 581; Trites v. Hitchcock County, 53 Neb. 79, 73 N. W. 215; People v. Green, 64 Barb. (N. Y.) 162; Lattin v. Town of Oyster Bay, 34 Misc. 568, 70 N. Y. Supp. 386; Bower v. State, 134 N. Y. 429. An appeal cannot be taken from the findings of fact by a subordinate board of claims based on a complaint without evidence. Construing Laws 1887, c. 507. See, also, Spencer v. State, 135 N. Y. 619, and Union County v. Hyde, 26 Or. 24. But see Chapman v. State, 104 Cal. 690; City and County of San Francisco v. Broderick, 111 Cal. 302; Spencer V. Sully County, 4 Dak. 474, 33 N. W. 97; Reppy v. Jefferson County, 47 Mo. 66; Port Jervis Waterworks Co. v. Village of Port Jervis, 151 N. Y. 111; Wheeler v. Newberry County, 18 S. C. 132; Eidemiller v. City of Tacoma, 14 Wash. 376; Sharp v. City of Mauston, 92 Wis. 629. See, also, § 490, ante. 1323 Brush Electric Light & Power Co. v. City Council of Montgomery, 114 Ala. 433; Bass Foundry & Mach. Works v. Parke County Com'rs, (Ind.) 32 N. E. 1125. McGillivray v. Barton Dist. Tp., 96 Iowa, 629; Schneider v. Blades, 108 Mich. 3; Jarvis v. Chase County, 64 Neb. 74, 89 N. W. 624; Greeley County v. Gebhardt, 2 Neb. Unoff. 661, 89 N. W. 753. Service of notice of appeal. Pickens County v. Day, 45 S. C. 161, 22 S. E. 772; Baum v. Sweeny, 5 Wash. 712; Mason v. City of Ashland, 98 Wis. 313, 74 N. W. 357; Telford v. City of Ashland, 100 Wis. 238, 75 N. W. 1006. 1324 San Miguel County Com'rs v. Pierce, 6 N. M. 324, 28 Pac. 512; McDonald v. City of New York, 42 App. Div. 263, 59 N. Y. Supp. 16; Oshkosh Waterworks Co. v. City of Oshkosh, 106 Wis. 83, 81 N. W. 1040; Drinkwine v. City of Eau Claire, 83 Wis. 428; Telford v. City of Ashland, 100 Wis. 238. 1325 Lancaster County Com'rs v. State, 13 Neb. 523; Falk v. Strother, 84 Cal. 544. 1320 Smith v. Salt Lake City, 83 Fed. 784. The allowance of a por |