Industrial Commission of Arizona v. Price
| Decision Date | 21 November 1930 |
| Docket Number | Civil 2975 |
| Citation | 37 Ariz. 245,292 P. 1099 |
| Parties | INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES R. PRICE, Treasurer of the State of Arizona, and JOHN C. PHILLIPS, Governor of the State of Arizona, Defendants |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Original proceeding in Mandamus. Temporary writ quashed and complaint dismissed.
Mr John J. Taheny, for Plaintiff.
Mr. K Berry Peterson, Attorney General, and Mr. Charles L. Strouss Assistant Attorney General, for Defendants.
This is an original action in mandamus brought by the Industrial Commission against the Governor and Treasurer of the state, for the purpose of having determined the right and power of the commission to fix the compensation of employees without first obtaining approval thereof by the Governor.
In response to the order and citation to show cause, the defendants, through the Attorney General of the state, moved that certain allegations of the complaint be stricken as redundant and immaterial, and also demurred to the complaint for insufficient facts.
We regard the question raised by the demurrer the vital and decisive one and for that reason will not encumber this opinion with a statement of the matters asked to be stricken, as they have no bearing one way or the other upon the legal aspect of the question involved.
Besides orally arguing the case, both sides have filed extensive, helpful and well-considered briefs setting forth their respective views of the law, with citation of authorities in support thereof.
The facts upon which the action is based are as follows: Prior to December 16, 1929, the commission had in its employment, as its actuary, attorney, and examiner, one John J. Taheny, at a monthly salary of $500. On or about that date the commission increased such employee's salary to $600 per month, payable in equal installments semi-monthly, and thereafter issued its voucher, regular in form, to said Taheny for $300 for the half-monthly period ending February 28, 1930, directed to the Treasurer for payment out of the state compensation fund. When the voucher was presented to the Treasurer, he refused to pay it because the compensation of $600 per month had been theretofore disapproved by the Governor.
It is well settled, not only by statute (section 4396, Revised Code of 1928), but by the decisions of this court, that a writ of mandamus will issue to compel the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. It is likewise the law that mandamus cannot be employed to control the action or judgment of an inferior tribunal, corporation, board or officer, invested with a discretion. Prina v. Board of Supervisors, 16 Ariz. 252, 143 P. 567; Ryan v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.App. 71, 192 P. 1036.
Whether it is contemplated by the statute that the Governor of the state should have any part in the matter of the employment and the fixing of the compensation of the employees of the commission must be ascertained by the legislative language used in that connection. That language is found in section 1395, Revised Code of 1928, being a part of the chapter creating the Industrial Commission and providing for workmen's compensation and establishing a compensation fund. It reads:
It is the contention of the commission that this section contains no limitation upon its power to employ necessary help, or to fix their compensation. It is said the commission is the sole judge as to both, and that, if the Governor has any duty in that connection, it is only a ministerial duty. With all due deference to the contention, we cannot see it that way. It seems to us that the legislative intent is plain and clear that the Governor shall have a certain control or supervision of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. Bolin
...Pima County, 36 Ariz. 367, 285 P. 1034; Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County v. Pratt, 47 Ariz. 536, 57 P.2d 1220; Industrial Comm. v. Price, 37 Ariz. 245, 292 P. 1099; Palmcroft Development Co. v. City of Phoenix, 46 Ariz. 200, 49 P.2d 626, 103 A.L.R. 802, modified 46 Ariz. 400, 51 P.2d......
-
Porter v. Eyer
...36 Ariz. 367, 285 P. 1034; Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County v. Pratt, 47 Ariz. 536, 57 P.2d 1220; Industrial Commission of Arizona v. Price, 37 Ariz. 245, 292 P. 1099; Palmcroft Development Co. v. City of Phoenix, 46 Ariz. 200, 49 P.2d 626, 103 A.L.R. 802, modified 46 Ariz. 400, 51 P......
-
Mayor & Common Council of City of Prescott v. Randall
... ... RANDALL No. 5053 Supreme Court of Arizona July 15, 1948 ... Appeal ... from Superior Court, Yavapai ... intoxicating liquor. In Industrial Comm. v. Price, ... 37 Ariz. 245, 292 P. 1099, we held that an ... ...
-
St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Gilmore
...41 Ariz. 340, 18 P.2d 267 (1933). Courts should not strain to find ambiguity in the ordinary words of a statute. Industrial Comm'n v. Price, 37 Ariz. 245, 292 P. 1099 (1930); Parise v. Industrial Comm'n, 16 Ariz.App. 177, 179, 492 P.2d 426, 428 (1971) ("lacking a clear expression of legisla......