Menefee v. Askew
Decision Date | 01 February 1910 |
Citation | 107 P. 159,25 Okla. 623,1910 OK 47 |
Parties | MENEFEE, State Treasurer, v. ASKEW, State Game and Fish Warden. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
An "appropriation" in this state is an authority of the Legislature, given at the proper time and in legal form to the proper officers, to apply a distinctly specified sum from a designated fund out of the treasury in a given year for a specified object or demand against the state.
No arbitrary form of expression or particular words are required by the Constitution in making an appropriation, which may be made by implication when the language employed reasonably leads to the belief that such was the intention of the Legislature.
Sections 9, 10, art. 4, c. 19, p. 303, Sess. Laws 1909, in connection with sections 3, 13, art. 6, c. 19, constitute a valid appropriation as to the salary of the Game and Fish Warden in the sum of $1,800 per annum, and his actual and necessary traveling expenses, not to exceed $800 per annum, and the salaries of not exceeding eight deputy game and fish wardens each in the sum of $800 per year and their each actual necessary expenses, not to exceed $600 per annum, while actually employed under the direction of the State Game and Fish Warden, as controlled by sections 55 and 56, art. 5, of the Constitution, but continue in effect as an appropriation for two years and one-half only after the passage of said act.
The provision of section 3, art. 6, providing that the Game and Fish Warden shall be reimbursed for his actual and necessary expenses, including expenses of catching and shipping game for propagating purposes, to be paid monthly and in the same manner as his salary and traveling expenses, does not constitute a valid appropriation, as the sum certain appropriated is not distinctly specified.
Error from Superior Court, Logan County; J. M. Sandlin, Judge.
Action by J. S. Askew, State Game and Fish Warden against J. A Menefee, State Treasurer. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded.
Charles West, Atty. Gen., and W. C. Reeves, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error.
Welborne & McCalla, for defendant in error.
The sole question for determination in this case is whether sections 9 and 10, art. 4, and section 3, art. 6, c. 19, of the Session Laws of the state of Oklahoma, 1909, being an act entitled, "An act to protect fish, game and birds, regulating hunting, and to prescribe penalties for violation, and providing for the enforcement thereof," approved March 8, 1909, constitute an appropriation as contemplated by section 55, art. 5, of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma. Said sections are as follows (Sess. Laws Okl. 1909, c. 19, pp. 303, 306):
Section 55, art. 5, of the Constitution provides: "No money shall ever be paid out of the treasury of this state, nor any of its funds, nor any of the funds under its management, except in pursuance of an appropriation by law, nor unless such payments be made within two and one-half years after the passage of such appropriation act, and every such law making a new appropriation, or continuing or reviving an appropriation, shall distinctly specify the sum appropriated and the object to which it is to be applied, and it shall not be sufficient for such law to refer to any other law to fix such sum."
The following authorities support the contention that, where a constitutional provision fixes salaries of officers with a limitation, same neither to be changed nor increased during the term to which such officer was appointed or elected, and a definite time being fixed by the Constitution or statute for the payment of such officer, such provisions proprio vigore constitute an appropriation out of the treasury for the payment thereof as the same becomes due: Thomas v. Owens, 4 Md. 189; State v. Hickman, 9 Mont. 370, 23 P. 740, 8 L. R. A. 403; State v. Kenney, 10 Mont. 485, 26 P. 197; State v. Weston, 4 Neb. 216; State v. Weston, 6 Neb. 16; State v. Burdick, 4 Wyo. 272, 33 P. 125, 24 L. R. A. 266; People v. Goodykoontz, 22 Colo. 507, 45 P. 414. And some authorities go to the extent that such is the effect when the office is created by statute, and the salary and time of payment also fixed thereby. Reynolds v. Taylor, 43 Ala. 420; Nichols v. Comptroller, 4 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 154; Carr v. State, 127 Ind. 204, 26 N.E. 778, 11 L. R. A. 370, 22 Am. St. Rep. 624. The foregoing rule is criticised and not followed in the cases of Myers v. English, 9 Cal. 341; Pickle v. Finley, Comptroller, 91 Tex. 484, 44 S.W. 480; Shattuck v. Kincaid, 31 Or. 379, 49 P. 758; Kingsbury v. Anderson, 5 Idaho, 771, 51 P. 744.
In the case of Pickle v. Finley, Comptroller, supra, Mr. Chief Justice Gaines, in speaking for the Supreme Court of Texas said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial