Hall v. State

Citation29 So. 994,79 Miss. 38
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Decision Date08 April 1901
PartiesJAMES C. HALL v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

FROM the circuit court of the first district, Hinds county. HON L. BRAME, Special Judge.

Hall appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; the State appellee, was defendant there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

Frank Johnston, for appellant.

The question presented is whether under § 4248 of the code of 1892 a suit may be brought on this claim against the state.

It is contended by the attorney-general that the decision in the case of State v. Dinkins, 77 Miss. 874, sustains the proposition that a suit can be brought against the state only on claims for which the auditor is authorized by law to issue his warrant. The question, as thus comprehensively stated was not involved in that case. The question there presented was, whether a claim arising under the offer of a reward by the governor, could be sued on; and the question was not before the court in that case, in respect to whether claims of an altogether different character are within the statute allowing suits against the state.

The decision is only authority for the proposition that claims of the class then before the court come exclusively within the functions of the executive, and the action of the governor, in disposing of such claims, is final and conclusive.

The circuit court followed the decision in State v. Dinkins, upon the view that it overruled the former case of Whitney v. State, 52 Miss. 732. This is not a correct view of the decision in the Dinkins case. Dinkins' claim could be paid only by an order of the governor on the auditor, directing him to issue his warrant for the claim. The question was, whether the state could be sued upon a claim of this particular character, and not whether a suit could be brought against the state on claims of a general kind and of a different character.

Section 3201 of the code of 1892 gives the board of control authority to lease lands upon which to work the state convicts, and there is no contention on this question.

The effect of the contention of the attorney-general is, that the board of control may make a valid contract of lease, and violate its stipulations and conditions with impunity, and that the other party to the contract had no remedy whatever in the courts of the state for the adjudication of his rights under the contract. The case of Whitney v. State, 52 Miss. 732, is a precedent for the present suit.

Section 4248 of the code of 1892 does not define the claims that may be sued on as those for which the auditor may issue his warrant. The provision is, that no claim can be sued on unless a demand shall first be made on the auditor. The purpose of the statute is to give this official an opportunity of paying the claim, if there is any authority for its payment.

It is equally clear that the purpose was not to limit suits against the state to claims which the auditor is authorized by law to pay.

Where the state placed itself in the attitude of the lessee of large quantities of land upon which it placed its convicts, it assumed all of the obligations and responsibilities of an individual.

One of the many good reasons for the statute allowing suits against the state, is to avoid the trouble and expense involved in having controversies of a judicial character tried by the legislature. Besides this, when the state goes into business relations with its citizens, every consideration of justice and fair dealing requires that controversies in respect to the contract rights of both parties should be adjudicated by the courts of the state.

If it be held that no suit can be brought against the state except upon a claim for which the auditor is authorized to issue his warrant, then it would follow that no suit whatever can be brought against the state.

The auditor can only issue his warrant for a claim in cases where he is authorized by law to do so, and where an application is made for its payment. In all such case...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Wunderlich v. State Highway Commission
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1938
    ... ... Dinsmore, 1 Thompson (N.Y.) 280; Life Ins. Co. v ... State, 159 Miss. 513, 132; So. 459; Ins. Co. v ... State, 132 So. 560; Miss. Exposition Co. v ... Luderbach, 123 Miss. 828, 86 So. 517; Gulf Export ... Co. v. State, 112 Miss. 452, 73 So. 281; Hall v ... State, 79 Miss. 38, 29 So. 994; Green v. State, ... 53 Miss. 148; McMaster v. State, 15 N.E. 417; ... University v. Bruner, 51 N.E. 687; People v. Sohmer, ... 207 N.Y. 450, 101 N.E. 164 ... A ... county being a subdivision of the state is entitled to the ... same ... ...
  • Pearl River County v. Merchants Bank & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 8, 1934
    ... ... show that the funds went into bank (Code 1930, section 2914) ... 2 ... BANKS AND BANKING ... Where ... state depository had no security pledged as to certain state ... deposit, such deposit was trust fund for which state would be ... entitled to preference ... relief against such party ... A ... sovereign state cannot be sued except by its consent ... Hall v ... State, 79 Miss. 38 ... It is ... also true that a suit against a state officer in his official ... capacity, where the rights of ... ...
  • Marrapese v. State of RI, Civ. A. No. 80-0167.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • October 10, 1980
    ...providing that state can be sued in any court "at the seat of government" is not a waiver of sovereign immunity. See Hall v. State, 79 Miss. 38, 29 So. 994 (1901). Missouri-Mo.Ann.Stat. § 537.600 (Vernon), enacted 1978, reaffirmed general sovereign and governmental tort immunities; waived i......
  • Utah Construction Company v. State Highway Commission
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1933
    ... ... v. U.S. 263 U.S. 537. Plaintiff's claim was ... unliquidated until suitable compensation had been determined ... Sanborn Co. v. Butler, (Ore.) 178 P. 228; ... Waterman Co. v. School Dist., (Mich.) 150 N.W. 104; ... Nassoiy v. Tomlinson, (N. Y.) 42 N.E. 715; Hall ... v. State, (Miss.) 29 So. 994; Gulf Export Co. v ... St., (Miss.) 73 So. 281; Westinghouse Co. v ... Chamber, (Calif.) 145 P. 1025; Stuart v. Smith Co., ... (Va.) 96 S.W. 242; State v. Snyder, 212 P. 771 ... It must be assumed that the legislature had in mind the fact ... than ... ...
  • 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