McPherson v. Huston
Decision Date | 12 May 1913 |
Citation | 24 Idaho 21,132 P. 107 |
Parties | J. U. McPHERSON, State Horticultural Inspector and Ex-officio State Bee Inspector, Plaintiff, v. FRED L. HUSTON, State Auditor, Defendant |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
MANDAMUS-LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION-STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
1. Under the provisions of sec. 1 of the general appropriation bill of 1913 (Sess. Laws 1913, p. 637), the amounts specifically appropriated for the purposes stated in said act constitute the whole amount appropriated and to be used for any such purposes during the years 1913 and 1914.
2. Held, under the provisions of sec. 1340-E, the maximum amount to be expended on behalf of the Bee Inspection branch of the Horticultural Department is limited to $2,500, and that an appropriation is made for that branch of said department by the general appropriation act of 1913.
3. Held, that no appropriation is made by the provisions of sec 1340-E, Sess. Laws 1913, p. 537, when considered in connection with the general appropriation act.
An original application in this court for a writ of mandate. Writ denied.
Application for the writ of mandate denied. No costs awarded.
E. G Davis, for Plaintiff.
"If by the provisions of said section, a specific sum had been appropriated annually to pay claims arising thereunder, then the auditor would be authorized to draw the warrant demanded in this case, unless the appropriation had been previously exhausted." (Kingsbury v. Anderson, 5 Idaho 773, 51 P. 744.)
"'Appropriated by law' means the act of the legislature setting apart or assigning to a particular use a certain sum of money to be used in the payment of debts or dues from the state to its creditors." (Clayton v. Berry, 27 Ark. 129.)
(Humbert v. Dunn, 84 Cal. 57, 24 P. 111.)
"To an appropriation within the meaning of the constitution nothing more is requisite than a designation of the amount and the fund out of which it should be paid." (People ex rel. McCauley v. Brooks, 16 Cal. 11.)
"An appropriation, within the meaning of our constitution, is the setting apart by law of a certain sum from the public revenues for a specified purpose, so that the executive officers are authorized to expend that sum, and no more, for that purpose and no other." (State v. Moore, 50 Neb. 88, 61 Am. St. 538, 69 N.W. 373.)
J. H. Peterson, Attorney General, and J. J. Guheen and T. C. Coffin, Assistants, for Defendant.
(Kingsbury v. Anderson, 5 Idaho 771, 51 P. 744.)
This is an original application to this court for a writ of mandate to Honorable Fred L. Huston, State Auditor, by the State Horticultural Inspector who is ex-officio State Bee Inspector, directing the auditor to forthwith set aside and apportion the sum of $ 2,500, or so much thereof as may be found necessary, for the purpose of paying the duly authorized, audited and allowed claims arising from services performed under the provisions of House Bill No. 295, entitled, "An Act amending Sections 1329, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1336, 1337, 1338, 1339, 1340 of the Revised Codes of Idaho relating to Bee Inspection, amending Section One of Chapter 152; section 1330 of the Revised Codes of Idaho Section 1 of Chapter 152 of the Laws of the Eleventh Session of the Legislature of the State of Idaho pertaining to Bee Inspection; adding to Chapter 16, Title 8, relating to Bee inspection Sections 1340-A, 1340-B, 1340-C, 1340-D, 1340-E, relating to bee inspection and declaring an emergency," approved March 13, 1913 (Sess. Laws 1913, p. 573).
Said sec. 1340-E is as follows:
The only question presented in this case is: Did the legislature make or intend to make by the provisions of said section an appropriation of $ 2,500 per year for the purposes mentioned in said section?
In limine, we shall briefly review the bee inspection legislation of this state.
The first legislative act in regard to State Bee Inspector is found in Sess. Laws 1905, p. 170, and the first section of that act provides that the State Horticultural Inspector shall be ex-officio State Bee Inspector, and there was appropriated in that year for that department $ 12,500 for the Board of Horticulture (see Sess. Laws 1905, p. 275), and that appropriation was made in the general appropriation bill.
An act to amend the act of 1905, creating a state board of horticulture, was enacted in 1907 (Sess. Laws, p. 448), and in that year in the general appropriation act there was appropriated $ 12,500 for the Board of Horticulture. (Sess. Laws, 1907, p. 460.) The law in force at the time of the adoption of the Revised Codes was amended by an act of the legislature found in Sess. Laws 1909, p. 322, and by the general appropriation act there was appropriated for the Board of Horticulture $ 20,000. (Sess. Laws 1909, p. 138.)
By the Laws of 1911, certain sections of the Revised Codes in regard to the Horticultural Inspector and State Bee Inspector were amended (see Sess. Laws 1911, p. 457), and the first section of that amendment contains substantially the same provisions in regard to the appointment and payment of Deputy Bee Inspectors as are contained in the section under consideration, except it is provided that no more than $ 1,000 should be paid out of the general fund of the state for such purposes in any one year, and by the general appropriation bill there was appropriated for the Board of Horticultural Inspection $ 23,600. (Sess. Laws, p. 323.)
Several sections of the bee inspection act were amended and several new sections added at the last session of the legislature (Sess. Laws 1913, p. 573), and by sec. 1340-E, above quoted the expenses of that department are limited to $ 2,500 a year, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Wallace v. Jorgenson
...L.R.A. (N.S.) 537, 107 P. 159; Leddy v. Cornell, 52 Colo. 189, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 918, 120 P. 153, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 1304; McPherson v. Houston, 24 Idaho 21, 132 P. 107; Mansfield v. Chambers, 26 Cal.App. 499, 147 P. Under this constitutional provision the salary or compensation of the officer......
-
In re Application of Huston
... ... these decisions, absence either of knowledge of the facts or ... understanding as to the proper construction to be placed upon ... the law applicable to the matter at bar. ( Jeffreys v ... Huston, 23 Idaho 372, 129 P. 1065; McPherson v ... Huston, 24 Idaho 21, 132 P. 107; Falk v ... Huston, 25 Idaho 26, 135 P. 745.) ... In the ... light of these cases wherein the petitioner was defendant and ... is thus charged with knowledge as to the law because of the ... decisions of this court, his attempted defense of ... ...
- Hagan v. Sullivan