State ex rel. Taylor v. Wade, 41795
Decision Date | 13 June 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 41795,41795 |
Citation | 360 Mo. 895,231 S.W.2d 179 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. TAYLOR, Attorney General v. WADE et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
J. E. Taylor, Attorney General, Gilbert Lamb, Assistant Attorney General, C. B. Burns, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for realtor.
Paul Boone, Prosecuting Attorney, Ozark County, Gainesville, for respondents.
Mandamus to compel the County Court of Ozark County to prepare and publish a financial statement of the County for the year ending December 31, 1948, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 13827 and 13828, R.S.1939, Mo.R.S.A. After respondents filed return to the petition, relator filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Respondents challenge the right of the Attorney General to bring this action and contend that relator's petition was insufficient because it did not allege that respondents were requested to prepare and publish the financial statement, because it did not show that the State has any definite interest in the subject matter of the action (claiming it to be a matter of only local interest) and because it did not show that there were any funds available for such purpose. Respondents also contend that these statutes are directory and not mandatory and that they are invalid because the title to the Act adopting them was defective. It is admitted that respondents, members of the county court of Ozark County, have not prepared and published any such statement for the year ending December 31, 1948. It is further stated that the members of the county court who preceded them in office have not done so for many years.
There can be no question about the mandatory character of these statutes. Section 13827 says that each year 'the county court of each county in this state shall prepare and publish * * * a detailed financial statement of the county for the year ending December 31, preceding.' The requirements of the statement are set out in this statute with particularity and Section 13828 provides that 'the court shall forward one proof (of publication of this statement) to the state auditor' and obtain his approval 'that it complies with the requirements of this section' before paying for its publication or preparation. Furthermore, this section provides a penalty upon members of the county court for failure to prepare and publish such a statement; namely, that they shall not be entitled to any compensation after April 1st of each year until the state auditor notifies the county treasurer that the proof of publication has been filed. Certainly statutes that use the word 'shall', and then provide a penalty for failure to do what is required, are mandatory statutes. See 50 Am.Jur. 47-57, Secs. 24-35. As shown by this discussion in American Jurisprudence, this question usually arises in determining whether failure to comply with a statutory provision makes an act or proceeding void. The cases cited by respondents are such cases, namely, State ex inf. McAllister ex rel. Lincoln v. Bird, 295 Mo. 344, 244 S.W. 938; Hudgins v. Mooresville Consolidated School District, 312 Mo. 1, 278 S.W. 769; Cantley v. Village of Mt. Moriah, 226 Mo.App. 1230, 49 S.W.2d 275. See also State ex rel. City of Berkeley v. Holmes, 358 Mo. 1237, 219 S.W.2d 650. When the statute creates an official duty in the interest of the public it is a different matter; and when the General Assembly imposes such a duty upon a public officer, he has no discretion as to whether or not it should be performed.
Likewise, public officers are required to perform mandatory duties of the office imposed by the Legislature (which are 'of a public nature affecting the people at large') without any special request or demand from anyone. State ex rel. Thompson v. Jones, 328 Mo. 267, 41 S.W.2d 393. Certainly the enactment of these statutes for the publication of detailed information about the financial affairs of counties, with the requirement of filing proof of publication with the state auditor, was a sufficient demonstration of the interest of the State therein. Of course, the interest of the State is plain enough in having counties, which are political subdivisions of the State, fully disclose their financial affairs to their own inhabitants, to the public generally and to the state auditor. Such publicity as to the source and use of public funds has been considered essential to the proper conduct of county government for more than 100 years. See Laws 1841, p. 57. It is now more important than ever since it provides means for determining compliance with the county budget laws. 'Where a public right is involved, and the object is to enforce a public duty, the people are regarded as the real party [in interest] and in such case the relator need not show any legal or special interest in the result.' State ex rel. Wear v. Francis, 95 Mo. 44, 8 S.W. 1, 2. The Attorney General, both because of his statutory and common law powers, is a proper party to bring an action for the state which involves such rights and seeks enforcement of such duties, and which would prevent injury to the general welfare. State ex rel. Delmar Jockey Club v. Zachritz, 166 Mo. 307, 65 S.W. 999, 89 Am.St.Rep. 711; State ex rel. Barrett v. Boeckeler Lumber Co., 302 Mo. 187, 257 S.W. 453; 5 Am.Jur. 238, Sec. 8. We, therefore, hold that the Attorney General could properly bring this action in this Court and that the petition was sufficient without further allegations concerning these matters.
As to availability of funds, there is no allegation about it in the petition and respondents' return makes the following allegations: These allegations, in so far as they state facts, stand admitted by the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Respondents say that to compel them by mandamus to prepare and publish this statement, when all funds for the year in which it should have been published have been exhausted or obligated, would require them to do an illegal act.
Respondents' failure to make provision for this in the county budget is not decisive. In Gill v. Buchanan County, 346 Mo. 599, 142 S.W.2d 665, 668, we held that failure to make provision in the budget for the amounts necessary to pay in full, all county officers' salaries fixed by the Legislature did not affect the county's obligation to pay them. We said: So here, while the Legislature did not fix the exact amount to be included in the budget, its direction in these statutes that such a statement must be prepared and published annually is a mandate to the county court to include a reasonable amount for that purpose in each year's budget; and the amounts required for this purpose 'have priority over other items as to which the county court had discretion to determine whether or not obligations concerning them should be incurred.'
Even though all income collected and anticipated for Ozark County for 1949 'has been obligated and warrants drawn for same,' nevertheless, the cost of preparation and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Normandy School Dist. of St. Louis County v. Small, 49177
...clearly within the title are valid and only the part not covered by the title is invalid when it is severable. (State ex rel. Taylor v. Wade, 360 Mo. 895, 231 S.W.2d 179, 184, and cases cited; see also West's Missouri Digest, Statutes k64(10).) I do not see how there can be any doubt that t......
-
State v. Olinghouse
...the purported amendment of Section 549.061 for failure of the subject thereof to be disclosed by the title. State ex rel. Taylor v. Wade, 360 Mo. 895, 231 S.W.2d 179, 18413-15 (banc 1950); State ex rel. Normandy School Dist. v. Small, 356 S.W.2d 864, 867-8711 (Mo. banc 1962). Such result wo......
-
State ex rel. Daily Gazette Co. v. County Court, Kanawha County
...v. County Court, 109 W.Va. 31, 152 S.E. 784; Lewis County Publishing Co. v. Lewis County Court, 75 W.Va. 305, 83 S.E. 993; State v. Wade, 360 Mo. 895, 231 S.W.2d 179; State ex rel. Barnes v. Tauer, 178 Minn. 484, 227 N.W. 499. See Wolfe v. County Court, 119 W.Va. 362, 193 S.E. 556. Here, ho......
-
Stine v. Kansas City, 25307
... ... involving the construction of the Constitution of the State of Missouri. That section of the constitution which is ... of Missouri, Mo., 329 S.W.2d 687 and State ex rel. Burke v. Cervantes, Mo., 423 S.W.2d 791 suggest that a ... State ex rel. Taylor v. Wade, 360 Mo. 895, 231 S.W.2d 179, 181(1, 2); State ex ... ...
-
Tipping point: Missouri single subject provision.
...(per curiam); State ex rel. Reorganized Sch. Dist. No. 4 v. Holmes, 231 S.W.2d 185 (Mo. 1950) (en banc); State ex rel. Taylor v. Wade, 231 S.W.2d 179 (Mo. 1950) (en banc); State ex rel. Transp. Mfg. & Equip. Co. v. Bates, 224 S.W.2d 996 (Mo. 1949) (en banc); State v. Beckman, 185 S.W.2d......