Gilbert v. Moody

Decision Date27 February 1891
Citation3 Idaho 3,25 P. 1092
PartiesGILBERT v. MOODY, STATE AUDITOR
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

STENOGRAPHIC REPORTERS-THEIR COMPENSATION-ACT NOT REPUGNANT TO CONSTITUTION-MANDAMUS-CONSTITUTION CONSTRUED.-Stenographic reporters appointed by district judges, under an act of the fifteenth legislative assembly, are entitled to the compensation fixed by said act.

SAME.-Said act is not repugnant to the constitution.

COURT REPORTER.-Said act creates the office of court reporter and makes the appropriation for the payment of his salary.

MANDAMUS WILL LIE.-Mandamus will issue to compel the state auditor to issue a warrant for the payment of the court reporter's salary as required by said act.

ACT CHANGING TERRITORY TO STATE AND CONTROLLER TO AUDITOR.-The act of the first legislative assembly of the state of Idaho amending the Revised Statutes of Idaho Territory and the Fifteenth Session Laws changing the word "territory" to "state," and "controller" to "auditor," is not in conflict with the constitution.

(Syllabus by Sullivan, C. J.)

Peremptory writ issued and ordered.

Cahalan & Badger, for Plaintiff.

George H. Roberts, Attorney General, for the State Auditor.

No briefs were filed in this case.

SULLIVAN C. J. Morgan and Huston, JJ., concur.

OPINION

SULLIVAN, C. J.

The plaintiff, Justin Gilbert, applied to this court for a writ of mandate to compel the defendant, Honorable Silas W. Moody auditor of the state of Idaho, to issue his warrant in favor of the plaintiff, in payment for certain services claimed to have been performed by said plaintiff as stenographic court reporter. The material facts set forth in said application are substantially as follows: On the third day of April, 1889, the plaintiff was duly appointed stenographic court reporter of the second judicial district of Idaho territory, by Chief Justice Wier, sitting as a district judge of said judicial district. That said plaintiff entered upon and performed the duties of said office and performed the same under said appointment, to and including the second day of November, 1890; for which services he received the compensation provided by law. That from and after said second day of November, 1890, to the eighteenth day of November, 1890, he continued to perform the duties of said office under and by virtue of said appointment made as aforesaid. That on the eighteenth day of November, 1890, the plaintiff was duly appointed stenographic reporter of the third judicial district of the state of Idaho by the Honorable E. Nugent, judge of said third district. That on said eighteenth day of November he entered upon his duties as such stenographic reporter under said appointment, and continued to perform the duties of such position up to the close of the eleventh day of January, 1891, and still continues to perform said duties under said last appointment. That on the ninth day of January 1891, the plaintiff presented his claim against the state of Idaho, for his services as official reporter, from the third day of November, 1890, to the eleventh day of January, 1891, both mentioned days included, amounting in all to the sum of $ 374.98. That on the ninth day of January, 1891, the defendant was, ever since has been, and now is, the duly qualified and acting auditor of the state of Idaho. That the defendant, as such auditor, refused to allow plaintiff's said claim, and refused to issue to the plaintiff his warrant in payment of said claim, and asks that a writ of mandate be issued out of this court commanding the said auditor to draw his warrant on the state treasurer of Idaho, in favor of the plaintiff, for the amount of said claim. The defendant admits all of the material facts set forth in plaintiff's application, but denies that the Honorable E. Nugent, as judge of the third judicial district of the state of Idaho, had any authority to appoint the plaintiff stenographic reporter of said third district court. And further alleges that no appropriation has been made by law for the payment of compensation to the stenographic court reporter of said district court; and, further, that there is no money or funds in the hands of the treasurer of the state of Idaho applicable to the payment of plaintiff's said claim.

This case involves the validity of an act passed by the fifteenth legislative assembly of Idaho, entitled "An act to provide for the appointment of a court stenographic reporter in each judicial district of Idaho territory," which act was approved February 4, 1889. (15th Sess. Laws, p....

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Jackson v. Gallet
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • July 3, 1924
    ...... appropriate can be determined and the extent of the. appropriation can be ascertained. ( Gilbert v. Moody, . 3 Idaho 3, 25 P. 1092; Kingsbury v. Anderson, 5. Idaho 771, 51 P. 744; Reed v. Huston, 24 Idaho 26,. 132 P. 109; Rich v. Huston, ......
  • State ex rel. Wallace v. Jorgenson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • July 26, 1916
    ...used in the statute. State ex rel. Wade v. Kenney, 10 Mont. 485, 26 P. 197; Terrell v. Sparks, 104 Tex. 191, 135 S.W. 519; Gilbert v. Moody, 3 Idaho 3, 25 P. 1092; ex rel. Brainerd v. Grimes, 7 Wash. 191, 34 P. 833; Humbert v. Dunn, 84 Cal. 57, 24 P. 111; Proll v. Dunn, 80 Cal. 220, 22 P. 1......
  • The State ex rel. Hawes v. Mason
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 19, 1899
    ...as in the original Act of 1861, and no appropriation by the municipal assembly was necessary. Reynolds v. Taylor, 43 Ala. 420; Gilbert v. Moody, 25 P. 1092; San Francisco Dunn, 69 Cal. 73; State v. Hickman, 9 Mont. 370; Thomas v. Owens, 4 Md. 189; State v. Weston, 4 Neb. 216; State v. Hickm......
  • Wright v. Callahan, 6733
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • February 3, 1940
    ......7, Rev. Stats. Idaho 1887. secs. 205 to 222,. inclusive; Constitutional Convention Proceedings, vol. 1, pp. 412, 413, 414 and 415: Gilbert v. Moody. 3 Idaho 3,. 25 P. 1092; Conger v. Commissioners of Latah County, . 5 Idaho 347, 48 P. 1064; McDonald v. Doust, 11 Idaho. 14, 81 P. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT