Tbe agreed facts are tbat plaintiff was duly elected superintendent of bealtb for Harnett County by tbe board of bealtb of said county and his compensation fixed by said board at tbe rate of $600 per annum. Upon tbe presentation of plaintiff’s claim, tbe matter being properly brought before tbe defendants, tbe board of commissioners of said county, they declined to audit and allow such expenditure, upon tbe ground tbat it was exorbitant and unreasonable.
Tbe defendants then authorized an expenditure of $300 per annum for tbe services of plaintiff as superintendent of bealtb.
Section 9 of chapter 62 of tbe Public Laws of 1911 provides tbat tbe board of bealtb shall make such rules and regulations, pay such fees and salaries and impose such penalties as in their judgment may bé necessary to protect and advance tbe public bealtb: Provided, tbat all expenditures shall be approved by tbe board of county commissioners before being paid.
Tbe very question presented here was decided by this Court adversely to plaintiff’s contention in McCullers v. Commissioners, 158 N. C., 84, where it is said: “It thus becomes tbe duty of tbe board of commissioners to pass on and audit tbe plaintiff’s account for services and determine whether they are reasonable and within tbe bounds fixed by tbe statute. . . . Tbe approval of tbe defendant’s board is necessary to tbe payment of plaintiff’s account, and while tbe courts will not undertake to compel tbe county commissioners to approve them, they will require them to consider tbe account and to pass on it in good faith in tbe exercise of a sound judgment as to whether or not tbe services as charged are warranted by tbe statute.”
Tbe Constitution of this State prescribes tbat a board of commissioners shall be biennially elected in each county. Such board is given “a general supervision and control of tbe penal and charitable institutions, *548schools, roads, bridges, levying of taxes and of the finances of the county as may be prescribed by law.”
The commissioners constitute the local governing body of the county and are directly responsible to the people who elected them. It is not only reasonable but due to the people of the county that these men elected by them should have supervision and control over the expenditures of a subordinate and nonelective board.
It is not to be supposed that the General Assembly intended to deprive the taxpayers of a county of such necessary and proper protection and safeguards which are thus thrown around the county treasury.
The proceeding is dismissed at cost of plaintiff.
Reversed.