Clark v. Warner
| Citation | 1922 OK 16,204 P. 929,85 Okla. 153 |
| Decision Date | 24 January 1922 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 12900 |
| Parties | CLARK, State Highway Comm'r, v. WARNER, County Clerk. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
¶0 1. Mandamus--Exercise of Supreme Court's Jurisdiction--Matters Public Juris.
The power of the Supreme Court to grant mandamus and to hear and determine the same as authorized by section 2, art. 7, of the Oklahoma Constitution, will be exercised only when the questions involved are public juris, or when some unusual situation exists, whereby not to entertain jurisdiction would work a great wrong or result in a practical denial of justice. State ex rel. v. Ross, 76 Okla. 11, 183 P. 918.
2. Same -- Highways -- Construction -- Interest of Public.
Good roads with bridges spanning the streams intersecting such roads are potent factors in civilization, commerce, and general prosperity. The building of a general system of good roads is something in which the public is interested.
3. Same--Refusal of County Clerk to Attest Warrants for Bridge Building--Averting Danger of Losing Federal Aid.
When the United States Government appropriates a large sum of money to be used in the construction of a bridge spanning one of the principal rivers of the state, and such appropriation is made on condition that the state or the counties interested shall appropriate a like sum of money for the erection of such bridge, and a certain county, by its board of county commissioners, appropriates a specified part of the sum necessary to meet such government appropriation and the county clerk of said county refuses to attest the warrant for said sum so appropriated by the board of county commissioners, and by reason of such refusal on the part of said county clerk the sum so appropriated by the United States Government is in danger of being withdrawn by it, and thereby the public would lose the benefits of such sum in the building of said bridge, held, that an unusual situation exists whereby not to entertain jurisdiction would work a great wrong and result in a practical denial of justice. Under such facts, the Supreme Court will entertain an original action and exercise its original jurisdiction by mandamus so as to prevent a denial of justice.
4. Same-- Effect of Emergency Loan of Amount to County by Citizens.
Where such county clerk refuses to perform his duty by attesting such warrant, if some of the citizens of the county, by subscription, should raise a fund equal in amount to that appropriated by the board of county commissioners of such county to prevent said government appropriation from being withdrawn, and such sum, so raised by the citizens, is for temporary purposes to meet the emergency caused by the dereliction of duty on the part of the county clerk, this act on the part of such citizens does not defeat the jurisdiction of this court, for the unusual situation still exists. The building of the bridge is a matter in which the public is interested. The burdens, duties, and responsibilities rest upon the public, and not upon the individual citizenship.
5. Mandamus--Claim Against County--Attestation of Warrant by County Clerk--Ministerial Act.
When a claim against the county has been presented to and allowed by the board of county commissioners, the attesting by the county clerk of a warrant drawn in payment thereof is a purely ministerial act as to which there is no discretion, and it is the legal duty of the clerk to attest the warrant without regard to the opinion of the clerk as to the lawfulness of the claim. Bodine v. McDaniel Auto Co., 69 Okla. , 170 P. 899.
6. Same--Claimant's Right to Writ Against Clerk.
If the county clerk refuses to attest a warrant ordered by the board of county commissioners and signed by the chairman thereof, in payment of a claim allowed by such board, the claimant may compel the clerk to attest such warrant by mandamus. Bodine v. McDaniel Auto Co., supra.
7. Counties--Decisions of Board of Commissioners--Right of Appeal.
Under section 1, ch. 117, Session Laws 1915, from all decisions of the board of county commissioners, upon matters properly before them. there shall be allowed an appeal to the district court by any persons aggrieved, including the county by its county attorney, upon filing a bond, or upon the written demand of at least 15 freeholders of the county, the county attorney shall take an appeal, when he deems it to the interest of the county so to do, and in such case no bond shall be required.
8. Same--"Persons Aggrieved" by Decision.
The persons aggrieved by the decisions or order of the board of commissioners are the person or persons directly interested in the matters involved upon which such decision or order is made.
9. Same--Right of Appeal by Taxpayer.
A taxpayer, as such, is not directly interested in the decision or order of the board of county commissioners because such decision or order may affect the amount of the taxes he would thereafter be required to pay. Such taxpayer is not thereby aggrieved within the meaning of said statute, and he does not have the right of appeal from such decision or order.
10. Mandamus -- Procedure -- Peremptory Writ Without Evidence.
In mandamus proceedings, where the averments in the alternative writ are sufficient to authorize the relief sought and the return of the respondent does not state a defense, it is not error for the trial court to grant the peremptory writ without hearing testimony. Bodine v. McDaniel Auto Co., supra.
Original action in mandamus brought by B. E. Clark. State Highway Commissioner, against J. D. Warner, as County Clerk of McClain County, to compel the said County Clerk to attest a certain warrant. Alternative writ of mandamus issued. The return of the County Clerk to the alternative writ failing to state a defense, the peremptory writ is awarded.
W. C. Madison, C. G. Moore, E. E. Glasco, and Roy Glasco, for plaintiff.
W. H. Woods, for defendant.
¶1 This is an original proceeding in mandamus brought on December 12, 1921, by B. E. Clark, State Highway Commissioner of the state of Oklahoma, as plaintiff, against J. D. Warner, county clerk of McClain county, Okla., as defendant, to compel the said J. D. Warner, as such county clerk of McClain county, to perform certain official duties which will be more fully set forth herein. The duly verified petition of the plaintiff shows the following state of facts: That the State Highway Commissioner, acting in conjunction with the county commissioners of McClain and certain other counties of Oklahoma, are attempting to erect a bridge across the South Canadian river between McClain county and Oklahoma county. For the purpose of erecting this bridge the United States Government has appropriated and set aside the sum of $ 100,000, on condition that the state of Oklahoma or the counties interested appropriate and set aside a like sum for the construction of said bridge. This appropriation on the part of the United States Government is known as Federal Project Number One. To meet this appropriation and insure the erection of the bridge, the counties of Oklahoma, Grady, and Kiowa have appropriated and set aside $ 85,000 for said purpose. On the 25th day of October, 1921, the plaintiff herein, B. E. Clark, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the State Highway Department, filed with the board of county commissioners of McClain county, Okla., and the defendant, as county clerk of said county, a claim for the sum of $ 15,000, which was the estimated proportion of the funds that should be paid by McClain county to offset or meet the federal aid of Project Number One. On the 8th day of November, 1921, the board of county commissioners of McClain county, being convened in regular session, duly and regularly allowed $ 11,700 of said claim, and disallowed the sum of $ 3,300 of the same. Said claim was allowed and ordered to be paid out of the state highway construction fund of said county, and there was at that time and is now sufficient money in the county treasury of McClain county to the credit of said fund to pay said claim. The defendant Warner, as county clerk, has possession of the warrant book and refuses to either draw the warrant in accord with the order or deliver the warrant book, upon demand, to J. E. Colbert, chairman of the board of county commissioners, so that the same may be drawn up by him, and said county clerk refuses to attest said warrant. The petition then states the following facts and asks for the following relief:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sharp v. Tulsa County Election Bd.
...unusual situation exists so that a refusal to exercise jurisdiction would work a great wrong or a denial of justice. Clark v. Warner, 85 Okla. 153, 204 P. 929, 931 (1922); State v. Ross, 76 Okla. 11, 183 P. 918, 920 (1919). The writ of mandamus here was necessary to prevent the possibility ......
-
Clarence L. Boyd Co. v. Blachly
...writ issued, the plaintiff cites Bodine, Co. Clerk, v. McDaniel Auto Co., 69 Okla. 143, 170 P. 899, and Clark, State Highway Com'r, v. Warner, Co. Clerk, 85 Okla. 153, 204 P. 929, where in each case this court held that the attesting of a warrant by the county clerk was purely a ministerial......
-
Gregg v. Hughes
...district court and the said court refused to entertain the same. State ex rel. Freeling v. Ross, 76 Okla. 11, 183 P. 918; Clark v. Warner, 85 Okla. 153, 204 P. 929. ¶6 The plaintiffs are met also at the inception of this case by a motion to dismiss the petition, for the reason that certiora......
-
Yocham v. Cnty. Election Bd.
...76 Okla. 11, 183 P. 918; Common School District No. 32 v. Independent School District No. 56, 75 Okla. 70, 181 P. 938; Clark v. Warner, 85 Okla. 153, 204 P. 929; Gregg v. Hughes, 89 Okla. 168, 214 P. 904. ¶7 The question of whether or not a county election board, in a contest filed after th......