Clark v. Carter
| Decision Date | 28 March 1922 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 11844 |
| Parties | CLARK v. CARTER, State Auditor. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. States--State Auditor--Powers of Office.
By the Constitution the State Auditor is made one of the executive officers of the state and is charged with the duty of faithfully executing all laws pertaining to his office, and is, therefore, not a mere ministerial officer.
2. Same--Duties--Passing Upon Claims--Discretion.
Under section 8066. Revised Laws 1910, the State Auditor is charged with the duty of examining and adjusting all claims against the state before issuing a warrant therefor, and by not defining the manner of examination nor the extent of adjustment the State Auditor is left to the exercise of his own judgment in the discharge of his duties and is held responsible, under the law, for failure to fulfill his duties.
3. Same--Investigation of Claims--Statute.
The proviso in section 8066: "Provided, that before issuing warrant in payment of any claim or account, the auditor may require additional information, and he may call, swear and examine claimants and others witnesses in reference to any claim or account presented to him"--is not mandatory nor compulsory upon the auditor, but is merely a grant of authority to him, intended to aid him in acquiring additional information should he be in need of additional information, and is not intended as a benefit to the claimant nor to grant power to the claimant to compel the auditor to acquire additional information where he already has sufficient information.
4. Same--Power to Reject Claim.
In the examination and adjustment of a claim against the state the auditor is not limited to the mere matter of form or the mere matter of correctness of addition of the items, but has authority to reject a claim altogether, if he knows it to be illegal.
5. Same--Purpose of Statute.
The primary purpose of the law is not merely to require that claims be made out in a certain form approved in a certain manner, but the primary purpose is to prevent the issuance of warrants upon illegal claims.
6. Same-- Procedure.
The law prescribes that claims be itemized, sworn to, and approved in a certain way in order that the State Auditor may be able to properly examine and adjust the same, and upon his examination and adjustment and upon his issuance of a warrant in conformity with the provisions of the statute, the state, under section 8069, pledges its credit for the redemption of such warrant.
7. Same--Nature of Office.
The auditor is the state's accountant, and the state looks to him for a correct accounting of the state's funds and holds him responsible for failure to correctly account for such funds.
8. Same--Abuse of Discretion--Remedy.
The State Auditor is not authorized by law to act capriciously or arbitrarily or with abuse of discretion in the adjustment of a claim; the law pre-supposes that he will act with fairness and in honest, good faith, but, in case he does act capriciously or arbitrarily or with abuse of discretion as to a claim, the remedy of the claimant is by resort to the equity powers of the courts, and the court will examine the facts and grant such relief as in its judgment the claimant should receive.
In such case the courts do not assume to control the discretion of the auditor, but, under the equity powers conferred by the Constitution, merely direct the auditor to execute the judgment of the court.
9. Same--Conflict of Authority--Board of Public Affairs.
Article 4, chapter 75, Revised Laws 1910, in creating the Board of Public Affairs and prescribing its duties and powers, and the subsequent acts of chapter 162, Sess. Laws 1915, and chapter 274, Sess. Laws 1919, conferring additional power on the Board of Affairs, do not take from the State Auditor any of the constitutional or statutory powers which he had before the creation of the Board of Affairs, nor do they authorize any conflict of authority between the Board of Affairs and State Auditor.
10. Same--Jurisdiction of State Game Preserves--Contracts-- Expense Claims.
The departments of State Auditor and State Board of Public Affairs are co-ordinate departments in our system of state government, and the authority of each is confined within its own particular sphere, and the law is so framed that each of such departments may fully discharge its duties without conflicting with the authority of the other.
11. Appeal and Error--Review of Equity Case--Judgment.
Record examined, and held, that the State Board of Affairs has jurisdiction of the State Game Preserves and the letting of contracts involved herein and is authorized to incur the character of expenses involved herein, and that the trial court was in error in holding that the Board of Affairs was without authority to incur the expenses involved. In an equity case this court will weigh the evidence, and if, in its judgments, the judgment of the trial court be against the clear weight of the evidence, then this court will render such judgment as should have been rendered by the trial court.
Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Edward Dewes Oldfield, Judge.
Action by George F. Clark, member of the State Board of Public Affairs, against Frank C. Carter, as State Auditor, for a writ of mandamus to compel said Frank C. Carter, as auditor, to allow a claim of said George F. Clark and to issue warrant therefor for traveling expenses incurred by said George F. Clark in the discharge of his duties as a member of the State Board of Affairs. Writ denied, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed, and judgment upon the facts rendered in opinion by KANE, J.
George B. Rittenhouse, for plaintiff in error.
N. W. Gore and Thos. P. McDonnell, for defendant in error.
¶1 This was an action in the district court of Oklahoma county by George F. Clark, a member of the State Board of Public Affairs, against Frank C. Carter, as State Auditor, for a writ of mandamus to compel said Frank C. Carter, as auditor, to allow a claim of said George F. Clark and to issue warrant therefor for traveling expenses incurred by said George F. Clark in the discharge of his duties as a member of the State Board of Public Affairs. Upon the hearing the trial court denied the writ, and claimant, George F. Clark, has appealed from the order of denial to this court. These questions of law are presented, which, together are determinative of the case: First, whether, under the law, the State Auditor is vested with any discretion in the auditing or allowance of a claim against the state, or whether his duties are purely ministerial and when a claim is presented in proper form, he has no other duty than to audit it and issue a warrant therefor. Second, if he has any discretion at all, do the facts in the case at bar show that he has abused such discretion in refusing to allow the claim and to issue a warrant for the same? Third, if he has abused his discretion, then what is the claimant's remedy? In this opinion our purpose is only to interpret and declare the law which governs the case. As to the first proposition, sections 8065 and 8066, Revised Laws of 1910, are as follows:
¶2 The foregoing sections plainly impose a duty upon the State Auditor which, in my opinion, calls for the exercise of at least some degree of discretion. Section 8066 provides that "all claims against the state * * * shall be presented to the auditor, who shall examine and adjust the same;" and the further provision that before issuing a warrant in payment of any claim, the auditor may require additional information and may call and swear witnesses in reference to any claim. This, it seems to me, is intended to vest him with some degree of discretion in the matter of whether he should issue a warrant against a state fund.
¶3 Section 8065 provides that all claims or accounts which by law are to be paid from the funds of the state by virtue of appropriation made by the Legislature, shall be itemized and sworn to as just, correct, due, and according to law and shall be signed as approved--not ordered to be paid by the officer having control of the department, but merely signed as approved by such officer--and shall then be filed with the auditor-- not allowed by the auditor, but filed with the auditor. It does not say that the auditor shall thereupon audit said claim and issue a warrant for same, nor does it say...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Seminole v. State ex rel. Okla. Dep't of Corr.
...imposed, and the courts will not interfere with his discretion unless it be made to appear that he has abused his discretion." Clark v. Carter , 1922 OK 106, ¶19, 86 Okla. 126, 209 P. 932. When the Legislature vests the Auditor with "a positive duty ... without defining the extent of such d......
-
Butler v. Carter
...claim was made, then and in that event it would be the duty of the auditor to withhold his approval. In the case of George F. Clark v. F. C. Carter, 86 Okla. 126, 209 P. 932, in paragraph 8 of the syllabus, the court held:"The State Auditor is not authorized by law to act capriciously or ar......
- Clark v. Carter