transaction of their business. If the commissioners neglect, the court may order the sheriff to do so, and the expense incurred by him in carrying the order into effect, when certified by the court, shall be a county charge.” Here is a specific duty imposed by law upon the board of county commissioners, and not upon the county. For an omission to discharge this duty the law affords an adequate remedy to the public officer by mandamus proceedings to compel the performance of that duty specifically enjoined by law. § 5517, Comp. Laws. The court will, in a proper case, command that the board provide office rooms, etc.; but the board is to judge for itself what conveniences and facilities are proper and necessary in view of the nature of the office whose income demands that he be furnished with office room, and the financial condition of the county, and the volume and character of the public business to be transacted by such officer. No public officer can, upon refusal of the county board to furnish him with an office, substitute his judgment for that of the body to whose judgment the law has left the question, and then hold the county liable for the rent of such office. The question is an administrative one, and the remedy of the citizen is by mandamus to compel the board to take some action, and furnish him with some kind of an office, in which to perform his public duties. The county can be held for rent only when a valid contract is made by some officer or body having authority to bind the county in that respect. The law confers upon no officer the power to rent his own office and bind the county. On the contrary, that power is vested exclusively in the board of county commissioners, except as otherwise provided in the last sentence of § 606. Whether that body discharged its duty to the plaintiff was a question exclusively between himself and that body. The bare statement of the facts seems to us to suffice without further argument. We cite as more or less sustaining our views the following decisions: Peck v. Kent Co.,47 Mich. 477, 11 N. W. Rep. 279; Roberts v. Commissioners, 10 Kan. 29; People v. Supervisors, 23 How. Pr. 89; Hendricks v. Commissioners, 35 Kan. 483, 11 Pac. Rep. 450; Commissioners v. Stoddart, 13 Kan. 207. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. All concur.
