The county board, after the adoption of the annual county budget statement, may issue warrants against the various funds provided for in such budget statement within the limitations prescribed in this section. It shall be unlawful for the county board of any county to issue any warrants on any fund or contract any indebtedness against any fund, prior to the annual levy made by the county board, in excess of fifty percent of the fund provided for in the adopted budget statement for the ensuing year unless there is money in the treasury to the credit of the proper fund for the payment of the same. After the tax levy has been made by the county board, it shall be unlawful for the county board of any county to (1) issue any warrants for any amount exceeding eighty-five percent of the aggregate of the amount provided by the budget as finally determined when the levy is made unless there is money in the treasury to the credit of the proper fund for the payment of the same or (2) issue any certificate of indebtedness in any form in payment of any account or claim, make any contracts for or incur any indebtedness in any form in payment of any account or claim, or make any contracts for or incur any indebtedness against the county in excess of the amount provided for and appropriated to any or all of the several funds by the annual county budget statement for the current year except as provided in section 13-511.

Annotations

1. Contracts

2. Warrants

3. Miscellaneous

1. Contracts

Purpose and intent of this section was not only that a contract in contravention thereof was unenforceable, but also any obligation of any other character should also be unenforceable. Warren v. County of Stanton, 147 Neb. 32, 22 N.W.2d 287 (1946).

County was liable for reasonable value of services of auditor making investigation. Campbell v. Douglas County, 142 Neb. 773, 7 N.W.2d 764 (1943).

A county board by a contract made with an architect in 1921 cannot bind the county to pay commissions to the architect under a levy made in 1931. Berlinghof v. Lincoln County, 128 Neb. 28, 257 N.W. 373 (1934).

County treasurer undertaking to pay unallowed salary claims against county from sinking fund without warrant cannot take assignments of claims and thereafter recover thereon as valid obligation of county unless sinking funds are reimbursed prior thereto. Woods v. Brown County, 125 Neb. 256, 249 N.W. 601 (1933).

Contracts in excess of levy are void. Austin Mfg. Co. v. Colfax County, 67 Neb. 101, 93 N.W. 145 (1903).

After estimate is made, county may anticipate levy and contract indebtedness. Austin Mfg. Co. v. Brown County, 65 Neb. 60, 90 N.W. 929 (1902).

Board does not audit claims unless levy is made or money in treasury. Board of County Comrs. of Lancaster County v. State ex rel. Miller, 13 Neb. 523, 14 N.W. 517 (1882).

2. Warrants

In action against county commissioners to recover money alleged to have been unlawfully expended after the annual tax levy, it must be shown that warrants in excess of the levy for the current year were issued, and that there was no money in the proper fund for their payment. Thiles v. County Board of Sarpy County, 189 Neb. 1, 200 N.W.2d 13 (1972).

Warrants issued in violation of this section are absolutely void. Warren v. Stanton County, 145 Neb. 220, 15 N.W.2d 757 (1944).

County board cannot be compelled by mandamus to issue warrants for an amount exceeding eighty-five percent of the amount levied by tax for the current year except there be money in the proper fund for payment of same. State ex rel. Boxberger v. Burns, 132 Neb. 31, 270 N.W. 656 (1937).

In action against county commissioners to recover money alleged to have been unlawfully expended, it must be shown not only that warrants in excess of eighty-five percent of the amount levied by tax for the current year were issued, but also that there was no money in the proper fund for their payment. Beadle v. Harmon, 130 Neb. 389, 265 N.W. 18 (1936).

Warrants are not payable out of levy for subsequent years unless included in estimate, or until after all indebtedness for subsequent year is paid. Roberts v. Thompson, 82 Neb. 458, 118 N.W. 106 (1908).

Warrant issued in excess of statutory limitation is void. National Life Ins. Co. v. Dawes County, 67 Neb. 40, 93 N.W. 187 (1903).

Action on warrant does not accrue until there is money on hand in the fund on which the warrant is drawn, sufficient to pay same, or the authorities have had opportunity to provide for payment and have neglected to do so. Bacon v. Dawes County, 66 Neb. 191, 92 N.W. 313 (1902).

Warrant issued for a purpose not within jurisdiction of board is void. Walsh v. Rogers, 15 Neb. 309, 18 N.W. 135 (1884).

Warrants drawn and unpaid cannot be included in levy in excess of maximum. State ex rel. First Nat. Bank of Beatrice v. Gosper County, 14 Neb. 22, 14 N.W. 801 (1883).

Action held not barred by statute of limitations. State ex rel. Hitchcock v. Harvey, 12 Neb. 31, 10 N.W. 406 (1881); Brewer v. Otoe County, 1 Neb. 373 (1871).

Where warrant is void, there may be recovery of purchase price. Rogers v. Walsh, 12 Neb. 28, 10 N.W. 467 (1881).

Precinct indebtedness may be paid by warrants issued by county. State ex rel. Osborne v. Thorne, 9 Neb. 458, 4 N.W. 63 (1880).

Chairman is not required to sign warrant where there are no funds or levy. Patterson v. State ex rel. Dusenbery, 2 Neb. Unof. 765, 89 N.W. 989 (1902).

3. Miscellaneous

Party prosecuting claim against county is not required to plead and prove that there are sufficient funds in the treasury or taxes levied to authorize board to allow claim, as this is a matter of defense. Sheldon v. Gage County Soc. of Ag., 75 Neb. 485, 106 N.W. 474 (1906).

"Incurring indebtedness" defined. State ex rel. Wessel v. Weir, 33 Neb. 35, 49 N.W. 785 (1891).