
    The People ex rel. Treasurer of Houghton County v. State Treasurer.
    
      Treasury warrants.
    
    The State Treasurer can make no payment on a warrant that is admitted to he excessive.
    H the Auditor General issues a warrant that is found to be excessive, it should be returned to him and a new one taken out, instead of drawing the proper amount on the original warrant.
    Mandamus.
    Motion submitted and denied January 28.
    
      S. F. Seager for the relator.
    Attorney General Otto Kirchner for the respondent.
    Application for mandamus to compel payment of a warrant issued by the Auditor General in favor of Houghton county, which the State Treasurer refused to pay. The application showed that the warrant had been issued for a larger sum than is now claimed by the county to be really due, by a mistake of computation. Relator now offers to endorse down the warrant by the amount of this mistake and asks a mandamus for the balance, on which a question of ’some importance was raised by the Treasurer on the merits.
   Per Curiam.

The mandamus must be denied. The Treasurer has no right to pay anything on a warrant which is admitted to be' excessive. The auditor’s books must show the amount of each warrant as it is to be paid by the treasurer. If the latter officer can pay anything except the precise sum called for by the warrant, the accounts in one office will not tally with those of the other, and the safeguards intended by law to make each office a check on the other will be destroyed. The only recourse now must be to the Auditor General, to give up the old warrant and apply for a new one. Pre-Bumably he will issue a new one if the county of Houghton is. entitled to it. If he should refuse, it will be time enough to consider to what extent we can inquire into his action in auditing such accounts as are here involved. We cannot presume anything in advance against. the propriety of his action when properly demanded.  