Leckenby v. Post Printing & Publishing Co., 9328.

Docket Nº9328.
Citation65 Colo. 443, 176 P. 490
Case DateDecember 02, 1918
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

176 P. 490

65 Colo. 443

LECKENBY, State Auditor, et al.
v.
POST PRINTING & PUBLISHING CO.

No. 9328.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

December 2, 1918


Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Charles C. Butler, Judge.

Action in equity for injunction by the Post Printing & Publishing Company, a taxpayer of the State of Colorado, on its own behalf and on behalf of all other taxpayers in state similarly situated and interested, against Charles H. Leckenby, as Auditor of State of Colorado, Robert H. Higgins as Treasurer of State, and another. Demurrers to complaint overruled, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

This is an action in equity, by an individual taxpayer, to restrain the State Auditor and State Treasurer from paying out money from the state treasury to the Lieutenant Governor upon an appropriation made by the Legislature.

At the time of the matters complained of herein, plaintiff in error James A. Pulliam was Lieutenant Governor of Colorado, and Charles H. Leckenby was State Auditor, and Robert H. Higgins was State Treasurer. Pulliam, as ex officio President of the Senate, presided over the Senate of the Twenty-First General Assembly in 1917. The Legislature at this session appropriated for the per diem of its officers, and to pay the members and employés thereof, the total sum of $215,000, and for printing and other miscellaneous expenses, the sum of $38,000, and for the salary of Pulliam as Lieutenant Governor, $2,000 for the biennial period of 1917 and 1918. In addition to these appropriations, there was included in the General-Short appropriation bill the following item:

'Lieutenant Governor's incidental and office expenses, for official or semiofficial purposes to be determined by him $166.66.'

And in the General-Long appropriation bill this item:

'Lieutenant Governor's fund for official or semiofficial purposes to be determined by him for the biennial period, $1,000, less amounts already paid from the Short appropriation.'

The present suit was brought by a taxpayer to have this appropriation adjudged void, and the prayer of the complaint is for a temporary writ, to be made permanent on final hearing, enjoining the payment of this $1,000.

Demurrers to the complaint upon the ground that plaintiff has no capacity to maintain the suit, and that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, were overruled, and defendants elected to stand thereon.

Thereupon, judgment was entered for plaintiff in accordance with the prayer of the complaint, and the state officers were restrained from issuing or paying any warrant to Pulliam under and pursuant to that clause in the appropriation bill which reads:

'Lieutenant Governor's fund for official or semioffical purposes to be determined by him for the biennial period, $1,000.'

The Constitution provides that:

Article 4, § 1: The Lieutenant Governor shall hold his office for the term of two years, and shall perform such duties as are prescribed by the Constitution, or by law.

Article 4, § 14: The Lieutenant Governor shall be President of the Senate, and shall vote only when the Senate is equally divided.

Article 4, § 13: In case of the death or disability of the Governor, the powers, duties, and emoluments of the office of Governor shall devolve upon the Lieutenant Governor.

Article 4, § 19: The Lieutenant Governor shall receive for his services a salary to be established by law, which shall not be increased or diminished during his official term.

Article 5, § 27: The General Assembly shall prescribe by law the compensation of the officers and employés of each House.

Article 5, § 28: No bill shall be passed providing for the payment of any claim against the state without previous authority by law, or giving extra compensation to any public officer after services shall have been rendered.

Article 5, § 30: Except as otherwise provided by the Constitution, no law shall increase or diminish the salary or emoluments of any public officer after his election or appointment.

Article 5, § 9: No member of either House shall receive any increase of salary or mileage under any law passed during the term for which he may have been elected.

Article 5, § 34: No appropriation shall be made for charitable or beneficial purposes to any person.

Article 5, § 33: No money shall be paid out of the treasury, except upon appropriations made by law.

Article 5, § 32: The general appropriation bill shall embrace nothing but appropriations for the ordinary expenses of the executive, legislative and judicial departments of the state, interest on the public debt, and for public schools. All other appropriations shall be made by separate bills, each embracing but one subject.

The statutes provided that:

S. L. 1883, § 1, p. 191: The Lieutenant Governor shall receive an annual salary of $1,000.

R. S. 1908, § 6153: Whenever the powers and duties of the office of Governor shall devolve upon the Lieutenant Governor, the salary of the Governor shall cease, and the same shall be received by the Lieutenant Governor as a full compensation for his services.

S. L. 1909, p. 314: Each member of the General Assembly shall receive $1,000 as compensation for his services for each biennial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 practice notes
  • Aiken v. Armistead, No. 12258.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • June 24, 1938
    ...the right to enjoin an invalid appropriation of the public funds from the state treasury." In Leckenby v. Post Printing & Publishing Co., 65 Colo. 443, 176 P. 490, the court answered the contention that there was a distinction by saying (page 492): "We are committed to a contrary doctrine i......
  • Aiken v. Armistead, 12258.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • June 24, 1938
    ...the right to enjoin an invalid appropriation of the public funds from the state treasury.' In Leckenby v. Post Printing & Publishing Co., 65 Colo. 443, 176 P. 490, the court answered the contention that there was a distinction by saying (page 492): 'We are committed to a contrary doctrine i......
  • Asplund v. Hannett, No. 3101.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • August 16, 1926
    ...supra, and the result reached is the same. Later, however, the Colorado Supreme Court, in Leckenby v. Post Printing & Publishing Co., 65 Colo. 443, 176 P. 490, upheld the taxpayer's right. Answering the argument contra, it said: “* * * We are committed to a contrary doctrine in regard to mu......
  • Taxpayers for Pub. Educ. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., Supreme Court Case No. 13SC233
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • June 29, 2015
    ...taxpayer generally may sue to enjoin “the misapplication of public funds from the state treasury.” Leckenby v. Post Printing & Publ'g Co., 65 Colo. 443, 176 P. 490, 492 (1918).¶ 62 All agree that Petitioners have taxpayer standing to assert their claims that the CSP violates certain provisi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • Aiken v. Armistead, No. 12258.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • June 24, 1938
    ...the right to enjoin an invalid appropriation of the public funds from the state treasury." In Leckenby v. Post Printing & Publishing Co., 65 Colo. 443, 176 P. 490, the court answered the contention that there was a distinction by saying (page 492): "We are committed to a contrary doctrine i......
  • Aiken v. Armistead, 12258.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • June 24, 1938
    ...the right to enjoin an invalid appropriation of the public funds from the state treasury.' In Leckenby v. Post Printing & Publishing Co., 65 Colo. 443, 176 P. 490, the court answered the contention that there was a distinction by saying (page 492): 'We are committed to a contrary doctrine i......
  • Asplund v. Hannett, No. 3101.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • August 16, 1926
    ...supra, and the result reached is the same. Later, however, the Colorado Supreme Court, in Leckenby v. Post Printing & Publishing Co., 65 Colo. 443, 176 P. 490, upheld the taxpayer's right. Answering the argument contra, it said: “* * * We are committed to a contrary doctrine in regard to mu......
  • Taxpayers for Pub. Educ. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., Supreme Court Case No. 13SC233
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • June 29, 2015
    ...taxpayer generally may sue to enjoin “the misapplication of public funds from the state treasury.” Leckenby v. Post Printing & Publ'g Co., 65 Colo. 443, 176 P. 490, 492 (1918).¶ 62 All agree that Petitioners have taxpayer standing to assert their claims that the CSP violates certain provisi......
  • 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