Calhoun County v. Brandon

• Citation: 237 Ala. 537,187 So. 868
• Decision Date: 06 April 1939
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 292.
• Parties: CALHOUN COUNTY v. BRANDON ET AL.
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

187 So. 868

237 Ala. 537

CALHOUN COUNTY v. BRANDON ET AL.

3 Div. 292.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 6, 1939

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

Petition of Calhoun County for mandamus to John Brandon, Charles E McCall, and Ben P. Singleton, as members of the State Board of Adjustment. From a judgment for defendants, petitioner appeals.

Reversed rendered and remanded.

Merrill & Merrill and R. E. Jones, all of Anniston, for appellant.

Files Crenshaw, Sp. Atty. for Board of Adjustment, of Montgomery, Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Silas C. Garrett, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.

THOMAS Justice.

The petition is for mandamus directed to John Brandon et als., as parties who constitute the State Board of Adjustment, to vacate an order declining to examine and allow a claim of Calhoun County, Alabama, for alleged wrongful payment of per diem and expenses of Assistant State Examiners Chandler and Edgar, in the examination of the accounts of Allen, as County Superintendent of Education, and Stanley, as Custodian of "School Funds."

The circuit court denied the mandamus, and the county appeals from that judgment.

The determination of this case requires a construction of the Act of March 1, 1937 (General Acts Alabama, Extra Session, 1936-1937, p. 205), under which the claim was filed. Said act reads, in part, as follows:

"The said Board of Adjustment shall have power and it shall be its duty to hear and consider all claims for damages to the persons or property growing out of any injury done to either persons or property by any of the agencies of the State of Alabama; also, all claims for personal injuries or death of any employee of the State of Alabama, or its agencies, commissions, boards, institutions or departments arising out of the course of his or her employment, or sustained while engaged in the business of the State of Alabama or any of its agencies, commissioners, boards, institutions or departments; * * * Said Board of Adjustment is also empowered and it shall be its duty to hear and consider all claims against the State of Alabama arising out of any contract, express or implied, to which the State or any of its agencies, commissions, boards, institutions or departments are parties, where there is claimed a legal or moral obligation resting on the State to make payment; also, all claims for money overpaid on obligations due the State; also, all claims for underpayment by the State to parties having dealings with the State; also, all claims for money or property alleged to have wrongfully escheated to the State; also, all claims for money voluntarily paid to the State where no legal liability existed to make such payment. The claims hereinabove enumerated are subject to all the limitations herein set forth. * * Provided, that employees of counties, municipalities and governmental relief agencies are not to be considered employees of the State of Alabama or of any agency, commission, board, institution or department thereof, within the jurisdiction of the Board, and within the meaning of the word 'employees' as used herein. * * *." (Italics supplied.)

The Act of September 14, 1935 (Gen. Acts Ala.1935, p. 1164), to which the foregoing is an amendment, is similar to the Act of 1937, the latter Act being an amendment to Section 2 of the 1935 Act. Hence our constructions of the former act are important to this decision.

The earlier decisions touching this statute are collected in Turner et al. v. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., 235 Ala. 632, 180 So. 300, and are not of the class of persons or claims as presented in this petition. It was there declared (1) that the act creating the State Board of Adjustment to hear claims against the State did not create a right but granted a privilege in the exact terms stated in the statute; (2) that the jurisdiction of the board was limited and so was its powers; (3) that this statute giving the jurisdiction and power to hear claims against the state must be strictly construed.

In State v. Tuscaloosa County et al., 233 Ala. 611, 172 So. 892, it was declared: "County held not required to reimburse state for expenses incurred in auditing accounts of county superintendent of education and county treasurer of school funds, since public school funds, as between county and state, are state funds and county, through its governing body, has no interest in nor control over such funds (Code 1923, §§ 181, 735, 736, subd. 2, 739, 741, 749; Gen.Acts 1933, Ex.Sess. p. 203, § 2; pp. 114, 128; School Code 1927 §§ 86, 94, 95, 138; Gen.Acts 1931, p. 604; Gen.Acts 1932, Ex.Sess. p. 38; Const.1901, §§ 256, 260, 262)." Under the last cited decision, the county was declared to be under no liability for payment of such fees and expenses of examiners touching such...