Brassell v. Brandon
Decision Date | 25 June 1931 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 963. |
Citation | 223 Ala. 324,135 So. 577 |
Parties | BRASSELL v. BRANDON, STATE AUDITOR. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones Judge.
Petition of L. H. Brassell for mandamus to John Brandon, as State Auditor. From a judgment denying the writ, petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
Brassell & Brassell, of Montgomery, for appellant.
Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and A. A. Evans, Asst. Atty Gen., for appellee.
The question is raised by demurrer to the answer-the facts and denials thereof. The trial court overruled the demurrers of petitioner thereto, and the latter took issue upon such denials of the answer that did not admit the allegations of the petition.
Were the allegations of fact contained in the answer proved by the testimony of the petitioner, L. H. Brassell, and by the exhibits introduced in evidence and admitted by him in his testimony to be correct, sufficient to deny relief?
The petition alleged, in substance, that petitioner, on the 18th day of April, 1927, was appointed an associate member of the state tax commission by the Governor, Hon. Bibb Graves; that he duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of the duties of that office, and continued to discharge its duties to and including the 20th of January, 1931; that petitioner did not receive a warrant from the state auditor, on the state treasury, for salary for the months of May, June, July and to the 15th day of August, 1930, amounting in the aggregate to $1,166; that due demand on the auditor for such warrant was made and there was failure and refusal to issue.
The answer admits petitioner's due appointment, that he qualified as alleged, and had not been paid salary for the time named; denied that petitioner discharged all duties of said office from May 1, 1930, to August 15, 1930, the period for which petitioner was not paid by the state or its officials. The answer further alleges that on, to wit, April 24, 1930, petitioner addressed a letter to the Governor in words as follows:
That to this letter the Governor replied in words as follows:
The answer alleges that petitioner accepted and acted upon the provisions of said reply; that defendant is advised by the present Attorney General of Alabama that the legal effect of said letter by petitioner, and the letter of reply thereto by the Governor, when accepted and acted upon by petitioner, operated as a removal from office for the time indicated by said Governor, or as an abandonment by petitioner of the office of associate member of the state tax commission, during said period.
The answer further alleges that due to this understanding between the Governor and petitioner, no salary was requested by petitioner for the period, to wit, from May 1st to August 15th, of the state auditor, until the latter part of the term of office of the Governor; that in accordance with the provisions of the said letter of the Governor on, to wit, August 15, 1930, the Governor did "gladly welcome back to the position of Associate Member of the State Tax Commission" the petitioner, and that, thereafter, petitioner, as associate member of the state tax commission, and during the remainder of the term of the said Governor, was regularly paid the salary provided by law for an associate member of the state tax commission.
The question then recurs: Was said L. H. Brassell, the petitioner, an associate member of the state tax commission from May 1, 1930, to August 15, 1930, or did his action by and with the consent of the Governor amount to a temporary removal from office, or a failure to discharge the duties of that office as required by law, though he discharged some duties thereof? The witness stated as to this:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bell v. Treasurer of Cambridge
...of the stipulation. Scofield v. United States, 6 Cir., 174 F. 1;Wilkinson v. City of Birmingham, 193 Ala. 139, 68 So. 999;Brassell v. Brandon, 223 Ala. 324, 135 So. 577;People v. Spencer, 101 Ill.App. 61;Jacobson v. City of Chicago, 191 Ill.App. 511;Relender v. State, 149 Ind. 283, 49 N.E. ......
-
Bell v. Treasurer of Cambridge
... ... by virtue of the stipulation. Scofield v. United States, 174 ... F. 1. Wilkinson v. Birmingham, 193 Ala. 139. Brassell v ... Brandon, 223 Ala. 324. People v. Spencer, 101 ... Ill.App. 61. Jacobsen v. Chicago, 191 Ill.App. 511 ... Relender v. State, 149 Ind. 283 ... ...
-
Downs v. City of Birmingham
... ... discharge of the obligation. Jeffers v. Whorton, 197 ... So. 358; Hamilton v. Edmonson, 235 Ala. 97, 177 So ... 743. Compare Brassell v. Brandon, 223 Ala. 324, 135 ... So. 577. So that he had a claim of substantial pecuniary ... right in the amount paid by the city. It was not ... ...
-
Jefferson County v. O'Gara
...the months of March, April and May, 1933, and August, 1934, copies of which are set out in the agreed statement of facts. Brassell v. Brandon, 223 Ala. 324, 135 So. 577. right and power to appoint the Deputy License Commissioner of Jefferson County, Bessemer Division, was, under the provisi......