Baker v. Singleton

• Decision Date: 16 March 1939
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 285.
• Citation: 187 So. 478,237 Ala. 394
• Parties: BAKER, STATE HEALTH OFFICER, v. SINGLETON, STATE COMPTROLLER.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

187 So. 478

237 Ala. 394

BAKER, STATE HEALTH OFFICER, v. SINGLETON, STATE COMPTROLLER.

3 Div. 285.

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 16, 1939

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones Judge.

Bill for declaratory judgment by J. N. Baker, as state health officer, against Chas. W. Lee, as state comptroller. From an adverse decree, complainant appeals. Revived on appeal as against B. P. Singleton, as state comptroller.

Affirmed.

Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., Silas C. Garrett, III, Asst. Atty Gen., and Steiner, Crum & Weil, of Montgomery, for appellant.

Jack Crenshaw, of Montgomery, for appellee.

THOMAS Justice.

The bill by the State Health Officer was for a declaratory judgment.

The decree on the amended pleadings and assignment of errors challenging the correctness of the same present for review the decree of the circuit court. The decree from which appeal was taken was to the effect, "That under the facts and circumstances set out in the petitioner's bill, and the law in such cases made and provided, the State Health Department of the State of Alabama is not entitled to receive the full amount of its appropriation for the State fiscal year ending September 30, 1937.

"That the State Comptroller is not legally authorized to issue his warrant for the balance of said appropriation, in the sum of towit: $80,187.47."

The purpose of the bill is stated, in a word, by appellant's counsel as follows: "* * * to have paid to the State Health Department the balance of its appropriation which was due it for the fiscal year 1936-37. It involves a construction of the McDaniel Amendment (Const. Art. 23, Gen.Acts 1933, Extra Session, p. 196), and the Budget and Financial Control Act (Gen.Acts 1932, Extra Session, p. 35), as applied to the fiscal operation of the State for the year 1936-37."

The issues raised by the amended pleadings in the case are: (1) Was there a sufficient balance in the General Fund of the State Treasurer on September 30, 1937, to pay the balance of all appropriations in full that were required to be paid therefrom; (2) is the Comptroller required to divide up the balance in the General Fund on September 30, 1937, among the balance of appropriations then outstanding and unpaid, or are such appropriations payable only in the proportion of the revenue "estimated by the Governor," as specifically required by the Budget and Financial Control Law; (3) was the comptroller authorized to issue the two warrants in question to the order of the State Health Officer for an amount exceeding $80,000 in the absence of an itemized, verified account, in the absence of outstanding claims against the State Health Department, such warrants being drawn to one not having a claim against the State of Alabama; (4) did the fact that the State Health Department spent $95,000 of its appropriation for central office expenses make the appropriation, or $95,000 of it, non-proratable as an essential governmental function under the decision of Abramson v. Hard, 229 Ala. 2, 155 So. 590; (5) if, at the end of the fiscal year, there was a balance on hand not sufficient to pay all appropriations in full, should the Court hold that all departments of the State which had had an opportunity to expend their appropriation during the fiscal year, but had failed to do so, were thereby barred as to any right in the balance on hand, and the Comptroller should then notify other departments of the balance on hand and give them an opportunity to incur claims and present warrants for the balance then remaining on hand; (6) did the oral representation by the State Health Officer to the Public Health Service that the entire appropriation would be forthcoming, amount to an encumbrance of the appropriation within the contemplation of the Budget and Financial Control Act; and (7) whether the Gen.Acts 1935, p. 771, repealed the Budget and Financial Control Act in so far as the Department of Health was concerned and also repealed the statutes requiring that the Comptroller only issue warrants upon itemized, verified claims and in favor of parties holding claims against the State or a department thereof?

The evidence was given orally before the court, rendering the decree, and is, therefore, supported by the prima facie presumption of verity that obtains. Hodge v. Joy, 207 Ala. 198, 92 So. 171.

It was shown that on September 30, 1937, there was a net balance in the General Fund, available for all claims, in the amount of $271,826.01, and there was an unpaid gross balance of appropriations to essential functions of government of $760,217.92, and a net balance of unpaid appropriations for essential governmental functions of $679,392.52, and unpaid appropriations for nonessential governmental functions in the gross amount of $564,004.03. It was further shown if the several departments of the State had expended their respective appropriations, on September 30, 1937, the end of the fiscal year, there would have been a deficit in the State Treasury.

The Comptroller testified as follows:

"The authority under which I set up certain appropriations as essential functions and certain as non-essential functions of government was as follows: When I came to prepare the budget, I took all of the Acts of the Legislature appropriating the money. Then I took the Supreme Court decision of Abramson v. Hard, supra. I called the Attorney General, Mr. Carmichael, Mr. Jim Screws, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Frontis Moore, Assistant Attorney General and Mr. Charlie Rowe, Assistant Attorney General. I went down there and told them I needed their assistance in determining the essential and non-essential functions of government. By 'essential functions', I mean those on which would be paid one hundred cents on the dollar.

"They came to my office, * * *. I took the Acts, and I read the Acts to the Attorney General; made him read. Then they turned to Abramson v. Hard, Supreme Court Decision (229 Ala. 2, 155 So. 590), and read that; and they said it was essential, or non-essential, and Mr. Shaffer put it down on the work sheet. That's the way we determined what was essential and what was non-essential.

"That practice, and that allocation, made under the direction of the Attorney General, has been carried on ever since that time, * * *.

"I notified the State Health Department as to what part of their appropriation would be paid 100 cents on the dollar, and what part pro-rated, by telling Mr. Savage, and giving them a copy of the budget. That was prior to the fiscal year 1936-7.

"I first notified the non-essentials in October that they could spend 31% of their appropriation, then later on, in April, when we passed the liquor law and certain appropriations were taken out of the general fund and transferred to the Special Education Trust Fund, I prepared a new budget and notified them they could spend 65.57%. There were some departments that did not spend that entire amount. The total amount of those reversions of the 65.57 was $87,152.82. Of the essentials, the total reversions was $760,217.92. I treated those as reversions; that's the gross. The net amount of the reversions is $679,392.52. That is the amount of the appropriations for the essential functions of government that was unexpended at the end of the fiscal year. Without these reversions, there would not have been any balance at all in the general fund of the State treasury on October 1, 1937. There would have been a deficit of $35,120.01.

"When Dr. Baker presented these two warrants, they were not accompanied by any itemized verified account. The full amount of the appropriation to the State Health Department was there for them during the fiscal year 1937-8. I don't know whether they spent it all."

The State Health Officer, Dr. Baker, testified that he made certain representations to the Federal Health Service in Washington to the effect that for the federal fiscal year beginning July 1, 1937, the Health Department of Alabama would have its appropriation available in full.

The testimony of the Financial Secretary of the State Health Department was to the effect that from October 1, 1937, to June 30, 1938, there was no reduction in the State's appropriation to the Health Department. The pertinent part of Mr. Savage's testimony was:

"I prepare the budget that is submitted to the United States Public Health Service. I make a draft of that budget and submit it to the State Health Officer for his approval, and after it is approved it is submitted with the signature of the State Health Officer to the Surgeon General for his approval. I am familiar with that budget, as it was finally approved and submitted to Washington.

"The witness was then asked the following question and gave the following answer:

"Q. Did that budget, Mr. Savage, include all of the Health Department's appropriations, including the amount involved in this suit here? A. I'm going to have to give a short explanation there, Judge.

"The Court: Yes.

"A. The government fiscal year operates from July 1st to July 1st. The State fiscal year operates from October 1st, to October 1st. So it is necessary, in June, when the budgets to the Federal agencies are prepared, to go on the basis that is then in operation; so that the budget for the period July 1st, 1936, through June 30th, 1937, was prepared on a basis of proration then in effect. But the budget operating from July 1st, 1937, through June 30th, 1938, was prepared on a basis of $430,000.00. So that during the last quarter of the State fiscal year, we were operating on a budget that employed the use of the full $430,000.00. So that when the question of the balance, on which this suit is brought, arose, we were operating on a budget that employed $430,000.00 of State

...