Brooks v. Jones

• Decision Date: 07 July 1908
• Citation: 61 S.E. 946,80 S.C. 443
• Parties: BROOKS v. JONES.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

61 S.E. 946

80 S.C. 443

BROOKS v. JONES.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 7, 1908

Affirmed by divided court, Jones and Woods, JJ., dissenting in part.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; Ernest Gary, Judge.

Mandamus by U. R. Brooks against A. W. Jones, as Comptroller General to require the issuance of certain warrants for salary. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J Fraser Lyon, Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Bellinger & Welch, for respondent.

GARY A. J.

This is an appeal from an order of the circuit judge in mandamus proceedings, requiring the Comptroller General to issue his warrant or warrants on the State Treasurer in favor of the petitioner for the amount therein mentioned being in full of salary up to May, 1908.

The facts are fully set out in said order, which is affirmed, for the reasons therein stated.

POPE, C.J., concurs.

JONES J. (dissenting in part).

In this case the circuit court granted a mandamus to compel the Comptroller General to issue his warrant to petitioner for $112.08 as balance of salary claimed to be due him from January 1, 1908, to May 1, 1908. The contention of petitioner is that he is entitled to a salary of $83.33 per month, or $1,000 per year from January 1, 1908, whereas the contention of the Comptroller General is that petitioner is entitled to a salary of $66.66 per month or $800 per year from January 1, 1908. It is admitted that the petitioner has received $66.66 for January, $71.25 for February, and $83.33 for March. He is claiming a balance of $16.67 for January, $12.08 for February, and $83.33 for April. On May 1st, when he applied for warrant for $83.33 for April, the Comptroller General declined to issue warrant except for such sum as would be due at the rate of $66.66 per month after deducting the excess of that rate paid for February and March.

Section 2725 of the Civil Code provides "that salary of the clerk of the Supreme Court shall be eight hundred dollars per annum to be paid out of the state treasury on the warrant of the Comptroller General." This salary has been paid to petitioner under annual appropriations since his appointment to office in December, 1894. The appropriation act, approved February 22, 1908, contained these provisions:

"Sec. 2. Judicial Department-That the following] sums, if so much be necessary, be, and the same are hereby, appropriated to meet the expenses of the judicial department: *** for the pay of the clerk of the Supreme Court, one thousand dollars: ***"

"Sec. 9. That the amounts specified in the preceding sections of this act, for salaries and clerical services, shall be paid in monthly installments unless otherwise provided for, and shall be paid upon warrants of the Comptroller General, on the application of the various officers entitled to the same. ***"

"Sec. 13. That this act shall take effect from and immediately after its approval."

"Sec. 16. That all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act, be, and the same are hereby, repealed."

After much doubt I have reached the conclusion that sections 2 and 9, construed together, show an intention to pay the amount specified-$1,000 in monthly installments of $83.33-as salary of the clerk of the Supreme Court.

It is competent for ...