Hudson v. Brooks, Civil 4818
Citation | 62 Ariz. 505,158 P.2d 661 |
Decision Date | 10 May 1945 |
Docket Number | Civil 4818 |
Parties | C. A. HUDSON, Doing Business as Hudson Tire Co., Petitioner, v. WILLIAM T. BROOKS, as State Treasurer of the State of Arizona, Respondent |
Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
ORIGINAL proceeding in mandamus.
Alternative writ made peremptory.
Messrs Locke and White, for Petitioner.
Mr John L. Sullivan, Attorney General, and Mr. Earl Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent Treasurer.
Mr. Charles Strouss, Amicus Curiae, for State Auditor.
Mr. R. G. Langmade, Assistant Attorney General, Amicus Curiae, for State Highway Department.
Petitioner filed in this court, in the first instance, his petition for a writ of mandamus upon which an alternative writ was issued directing respondent to pay a certain warrant presented to him for services rendered to the State Highway Department, or show cause why the same should not be paid.
When the services were rendered by petitioner he duly filed his claim with the State Highway Department. The claim was then duly audited by Ana Frohmiller, State Auditor, and she issued and approved a warrant for same dated April 17, 1945, payable to petitioner and chargeable against the State Highway Fund. Thereafter the Governor of Arizona duly approved the warrant. Petitioner thereupon, on April 27, 1945, presented the warrant to respondent for payment, who refused to honor or pay the same.
By his reply to this court of why he should not pay the warrant in question, respondent sets out that funds had not been previously appropriated for the payment of same, and that he is prohibited to make payment by Section 4-308, Arizona Code Annotated 1939, which section reads as follows:
Respondent's further response to the mandamus of this court is:
The respondent appearing through the duly constituted counsel for various state departments, the Honorable John L. Sullivan, Attorney General of Arizona, contends that the only question involved herein is whether Sections 59-302 and 59-303, Arizona Code Annotated 1939, were repealed by Chapter 86, Session Laws of 1943.
Section 59-302 sets forth what constitutes the State Highway Fund. Section 59-303 states the use or purpose to which such fund may be applied. Under said sections there was a continuing and recurring appropriation of the Arizona Highway Fund.
The respondent further contends that in 1943 by Section 17, Article 4, Chapter 86, the legislature of Arizona abolished said continuing or recurring appropriations previously made for the use of any state department or agency.
Respondent still further claims that by reason of the enactment of Chapter 86, Laws of 1943, the state treasurer must decline to make payment of the warrant in question.
For the purpose of a better consideration of Chapter 86, supra, we quote the title of same. Also Section 12, Article 3, and Section 17, Article 4, of said Chapter 86, being the sections relied on by respondent in support of his refusal to pay:
The budget and financial code governing state departments is set forth in Articles 1 and 2 of Chapter 10, of our Code of 1939. The budget and financial code of the State Highway Department is found in Article 3, Chapter 59, of our Code. The title of Chapter 86, Session Laws of 1943, above quoted, failed to include in it any specific language indicating an intent to amend, alter or repeal the appropriation therein made. As stated heretofore, the title of Chapter 86 relates "to state finances, budgeting and accounting, and repealing Articles 1 and 2 of Chapter 10, Arizona Code of 1939, and all other acts or parts of acts in conflict herewith, and all continuing or recurring appropriations." The title does not mention Article 3, Chapter 59 of our code, which has reference to our highway department.
Article 4, part 2, section 13, of our constitution reads:
Article 4, part 2, Section 14 is:
In our case of Taylor v. Frohmiller, 52 Ariz. 211, 79 P.2d 961, 964, in respect to these constitutional prohibitions we say:
In that case we also said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arizona Podiatry Ass'n v. Director of Ins.
...v. Frohmiller, 64 Ariz. 35, 165 P.2d 306; Arizona Corp. Comm'n v. Catalina Foothills Estate, 78 Ariz. 245, 278 P.2d 427; Hudson v. Brooks, 62 Ariz. 505, 158 P.2d 661. In Southern Pac. Co. v. Gila County, 56 Ariz. 499, 109 P.2d 610, we recognized that 'a statute may be repealed by implicatio......
-
Hudson v. Kelly, 5817
...constitutionality of the Act could be determined in such a proceeding. Tillotson v. Frohmiller, 34 Ariz. 394, 271 P. 867; Hudson v. Brooks, 62 Ariz. 505, 158 P.2d 661; Cockrill v. Jordan, 72 Ariz. 318, 235 P.2d 1009. See also Stockman v. Leddy, 1912, 55 Colo. 24, 129 P. 220, 221. Although t......
-
Key Agency v. Continental Cas. Co., A--21
...subject matter and especially those which were enacted during the same legislative session as the law in question. Hudson v. Brooks, 62 Ariz. 505, 158 P.2d 661 (Sup.Ct.1945); Davis v. Browder, 231 Ala. 332, 165 So. 89 (Sup.Ct.1935); 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction, § 5002, p. 484 (3d e......
-
Cameron T., In re
...provision is clear. Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary Dist. v. Ferguson, 129 Ariz. 300, 302, 630 P.2d 1032, 1034 (1981); Hudson v. Brooks, 62 Ariz. 505, 511, 158 P.2d 661, 663 (1945). Appellants view the sentence "All other juveniles accused of unlawful conduct shall be prosecuted as provided by la......