Curtis v. Moody
| Decision Date | 28 September 1891 |
| Citation | 27 P. 732,3 Idaho 123 |
| Parties | CURTIS, ADJUTANT GENERAL, v. MOODY, STATE AUDITOR |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE-MILITARY FUND-COMPENSATION OF ADJUTANT GENERAL-AUDITOR NOT TO DRAW WARRANT ON FUND NOT ESTABLISHED.-A writ of mandate will not issue to compel the state auditor to draw his warrant upon a fund that has not been established by law.
MILITARY FUND NOT PROVIDED.-An act of the legislature entitled "An act for the organization of the militia of the state of Idaho," First Session Laws of the State of Idaho page 217, provides that the compensation of the adjutant general shall be paid out of the military fund, but fails to provide such a fund.
(Syllabus by Sullivan, C. J.)
Writ denied.
S. B Kingsbury, for Plaintiff.
Silas W. Moody, pro se.
No briefs filed in the case.
This is an application made by the adjutant general of the state of Idaho for a writ of mandate to compel the auditor of the state to issue his warrant upon the state treasurer for the payment of the plaintiff's salary as adjutant general from April 10, 1891, to July 11, 1891. The defendant appears and by answer waives the issuance of the alternative writ, and, further answering, admits each and every allegation of the petition; and alleges, as the ground of his refusal to issue the warrant demanded, that there is no fund or appropriation provided by law for the payment of said claim, or upon which the defendant may lawfully draw a state warrant in payment thereof. The plaintiff, in support of the application for said writ, contends that section 32 of the act approved March 14, 1891, entitled "An act for the organization of the militia of the state of Idaho" (see 1st Sess. Laws of Idaho, p. 217), appropriates the sum of $ 2,100 for the purpose of defraying the current expenses of the Idaho National Guard, and of arming and equipping the companies thereof for the year 1891, and that the sum so appropriated constitutes what is designated as the "Military Fund" in sections 3, 33, 34, and 36 of said act. The defendant contends that section 3 of said act provides that the salary or compensation of the adjutant general shall be paid quarterly out of the "Military Fund," and that the appropriation above referred to does not constitute said fund. The only question for our consideration, then, is as to whether the $...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gooding v. Profitt
... ... It further says, "All taxes ... levied for state purposes shall be paid into the state ... treasury." This is mandatory. (Cunningham v ... Moody, 3 Idaho 123, 27 P. 732.) Under this provision and ... other provisions of our statutes, and particularly section ... 1410 of the Laws of 1895, ... ...
-
Ward v. Holmes
...upon the officer to perform it." (State v. Morehouse, 38 Utah 234, 112 P. 169; Gray v. Mullins, 15 Cal.App. 118, 113 P. 694; Curtis v. Moody, 3 Idaho 123, 27 P. 732; Wright Kelley, 4 Idaho 624, 43 P. 565.) BUDGE, J. Sullivan, C. J., and Truitt, J., concur. OPINION BUDGE, J. C. T. Ward, asse......
-
State ex rel. Jeffrey v. Burdick
... ... legislature in passing the appropriation, and for which, ... consequently, no limitation was provided. Curtis v ... Moody, (Idaho,) 3 Idaho 123, 27 P. 732. The demurrer is ... sustained, and the peremptory writ of mandamus ... GROESBECK, ... C ... ...