Morris v. State, ex rel. Brown

• Decision Date: 28 June 1884
• Docket Number: 11,768
• Citation: 96 Ind. 597
• Parties: Morris, Auditor, v. The State, ex rel. Brown, Clerk
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

96 Ind. 597

Morris, Auditor, v. The State, ex rel. Brown, Clerk

No. 11,768

Supreme Court of Indiana

June 28, 1884

From the Henry Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

J. H Mellett and E. H. Bundy, for appellant.

F. W Fitzhugh, for appellee.

OPINION

Elliott, C. J.

The relator is the clerk of Henry county, and sued out a writ of mandamus to compel the appellant, the auditor of that county, to issue a warrant for forty-eight dollars for money expended for the purchase of clothing for an insane man, at the time an inmate of the hospital for the insane. The purchase was made by the clerk upon the requisition of the superintendent of the hospital.

The ruling question in the case is this: Is the county auditor bound to issue his warrant upon a claim of the character described, without its having been presented to and allowed by the board of county commissioners?

It is decided in Pfaff v. State, ex rel., 94 Ind. 529, that where there is no specific provision for the auditing of claims, they must be presented to and allowed by the commissioners, and that unless allowed by that body the auditor is not bound to draw his warrant for them. The general rule, therefore, is that all claims must be presented to the commissioners for allowance, and the exceptions to the rule are the cases in which a specific duty to allow and audit claims is by law imposed upon the auditor. Whether the clerk had a right to the writ sued for must, therefore, depend upon whether the claim described is one specifically provided for by law.

In our opinion the present case is an exception to the general rule. Our reason for this conclusion is that the statute makes it the duty of the clerk to purchase clothing for an insane person, and imposes upon the auditor the duty of auditing the claim upon the certificate of the clerk. R. S. 1881, section 2856. The statutory provision is, that "payment for the same" (that is, for clothing purchased by the clerk) "shall be made out of the county treasury, upon certificate of the clerk and order of the county auditor." It is evident that the Legislature intended that the certificate of the clerk should be sufficient evidence of the claim, and when that evidence was presented the duty to issue the necessary warrant became purely a ministerial one.

The statute enjoins upon the clerk the duty of buying the clothing, and entrusts him with full authority in the matter, and does not authorize the commissioners to buy the clothing. As the clerk is the officer having authority in such matters, it clearly follows that his approval and certificate of the claim settles it definitely as to character and amount, and leaves nothing for the commissioners to pass judgment on.

It was competent for the Legislature to take from the commissioners authority in such matters and vest it in some other county officer, and to make his certificate evidence of the validity of the claim. This power has been exercised by the Legislature, and it was made the specific duty of the auditor to accept and act upon the certificate of the clerk. Of course, if...