Boner v. Adams
| Decision Date | 30 June 1871 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOHN H. BONER v. HENDERSON ADAMS, Auditor of the State of North Carolina, and DAVID A. JENKINS, Treasurer of the State of North Carolina. |
The Auditor of the State is not a mere ministerial officer. When a claim is presented to him against the State, he is to decide whether there is a sufficient provision of law for its payment, and if in his opinion there is not sufficient provision of law, he must examine the claim and report the fact, with his opinion, to the General Assembly.
Therefore, where a Clerk of the General Assembly had received a warrant for the entire number of days to which he was entitled, at seven dollars per day, he had no right to a writ of mandamus against the Auditor of the State because he refused to give him a warrant for three dollars per day additional for the same number of days for which he had heretofore obtained a warrant.
The mode of proceeding against the Auditor of the State, who refuses to issue a warrant, discussed and explained.
It is improper to join the Treasurer of the State with the Auditor in an application for a writ of mandamus, when the plaintiff has obtained no warrant from the Auditor of the State.
Application for a peremptory writ of mandamus heard before Watts, J., at Chambers.
The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was Clerk of the House of Representatives of North Carolina from the first day of July, 1868, to the organization of the General Assembly, which was elected on the first Thursday in August, A. D. 1870.
That for services rendered the State as Clerk, aforesaid, for the time mentioned in the preceding allegation, he is entitled to ten dollars per day, for three hundred and four days, less seven dollars per day, that he has received. That said additional sum is due him, under and by virtue of an act of the General Assembly, ratified the 26th day of November A. D. 1869, entitled “An Act in relation to per diem and mileage.”
That he has demanded of the defendant, Henderson Adams, Auditor of the State of North Carolina, a warrant for nine hundred and twelve dollars, the amount plaintiff is entitled to under the aforesaid act, and that the Auditor has refused to issue a warrant for said sum, and that in consequence thereof the defendant, David A. Jenkins, who is the Treasurer of the State, has refused to pay said sum. Wherefore, plaintiff asks for the writ of mandamus, commanding the defendant, as Auditor aforesaid, to issue his warrant to plaintiff for the sum of nine hundred and four dollars, and the defendant, Jenkins, as Treasurer of the State, to pay said claim upon presentation of a warrant from the Auditor for that amount.
1. The defendants, in their answer, deny that said sum or any part thereof is due plaintiff.
2. That the Judge, at Chambers, has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, and cannot issue a peremptory writ of mandamus, as prayed.
3. That the State cannot thus be sued for the recovery of a debt.
4. That the affidavit or complaint does not pray judgment for the debt, nor that the same may be audited, or ascertained according to law.
His Honor being of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to the process prayed for, ordered that a writ of mandamusissue to the defendant, Adams, as Auditor of the State, commanding him to issue a warrant for nine hundred and four dollars, and commanding the defendant Jenkins, Treasurer as aforesaid, to pay said claim upon presentation of the warrant of the Auditor.
From which the defendants appealed.
Fowle and J. C. L. Harris, for plaintiff .
Attorney General and Battle & Sons, for defendants .
1. There is here an improper joinder of parties.
The Treasurer must pay only upon the warrant of the Auditor. Acts of 1868-'69, ch. 270, p. 631.
2. This claim is immediately against the State, and a State cannot be sued.
3. The Constitution and laws provide the remedy for prosecution of such claims. Art. IV. sec. 11, C. C. P. secs. 415 and 416.
4. The act of 1869-'70 is prospective upon its face. (Chap. 1, p. 41.)
5. No appropriation act as to the Clerks. See Const. Art. XIV. Sec. 3.
6. Mandamus not a prerogative writ, but is now only an ordinary action at law. Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 Howard, 66. See also Tapping on Mandamus, 7-8.
7. Mandamus will not lie against a public officer where discretion and judgment are to be exercised, and can only be granted where the act is merely ministerial, and when there is no other adequate legal remedy. United States v. Seaman, 17 How. 225; U. S. v. Guthrie, Ibid, 284 ; The Secretary v. McGarvashaw 9 Wal. 298 ; Brashear v. Mason, 6 How. 102, where it is held that mandamus will not lie against head of department to compel performance of his ordinary duties. Reeside v. Walker, How. 290.
8. Forms and practice in mandamus. Eaton's Forms 416, at Eq., cases cited on page 489.
9. Distinction between this case and that of Lutterloh v. Commissioners of Cumberland, at this term. There was a judgment unsatisfied in an action pending in that case. Here none.
The Treasurer, Jenkins, can pay no money out of the treasury, except on the warrant of the Auditor. Acts 1868-'69, ch. 270, sec. 71.
The plaintiff admits that he had no warrant from the Auditor; and so, according to the plaintiff's own showing, he can have no process against the Treasurer. And, therefore, the case must be dismissed as to him with costs.
The Auditor is an officer, named in the Constitution, “with duties to be prescribed by law.” Art. III, secs. 1 and 13.
The Act of 1868-'69, ch. 27, prescribes his duties.
Sec. 63, paragraph 1, “To superintend the fiscal concerns of the State.”
7. “To examine and liquidate the claims of all persons against the State in cases where there is sufficient provision of law for the payment thereof, and where there is no sufficient provision to examine the claim and report the fact, with his opinion thereon, to the General Assembly.”
9. “To draw warrants on the Treasurer for the payment of all moneys directed by law to be paid out of the treasury, but no warrant shall be drawn unless authorized by law, and every warrant shall refer to the law under which it is drawn.”
Sec. 65. “He has power to require any person presenting an account for settlement to be sworn before him, and to answer orally any fact relating to its correctness.”
It is apparent that the Auditor is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Person v. Board of State Tax Com'rs
...void as violating the Constitution of the United States or of this state." To the same effect are Shaffer v. Jenkins, 72 N.C. 275; Boner v. Adams, 65 N.C. 639, and the opinion of the present Chief Justice in White v. Auditor, 126 N.C. 596, 36 S.E. 132. But the plaintiff insists that this co......
-
McCullough v. Scott
... ... the law has intrusted certain duties, the performance of ... which requires the exercise of judgment. In Boner v ... Adams, Auditor, and Jenkins, Treasurer, 65 N.C. 639, it ... was held that the state auditor is not a mere ministerial ... officer, but ... ...
-
State ex rel. Attorney General v. District Court of Fourth Judicial District
...King Co. et al., 30 P. 82; People v. Yeates, 40 Ill. 126; State v. Township, 10 N.J.L. 292; Columbia County v. King, 13 Fla. 470; Bonner v. Adams, 65 N.C. 639. has another plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law and mandamus will not lie. He has two methods of procedure: First. By appeal, ......
-
Bd. Of Educ. Of Yancey County v. Bd. Of Com'rs Of Yancey County
...v. Barrett, 63 N. C. 199; Glenn v. Commissioners, 139 N. C. 412, 52 S. E. 58; Vineberg v. Day, 152 N. C. 355, 358, 67 S. E. 760; Boner v. Adams, 65 N. C. 639; Koonce v. Com'rs, 106 N. C. 192, 10 S. E. 1038; Gulf Refining Co. v. McKernan, 179 N. C. 314, 102 S. E. 505; Alexander v. Lowrance, ......