Norcross v. Cole

• Decision Date: 19 May 1920
• Docket Number: 2450.
• Citation: 189 P. 877,44 Nev. 88
• Parties: NORCROSS v. COLE, STATE CONTROLLER.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

189 P. 877

44 Nev. 88

NORCROSS v. COLE, STATE CONTROLLER.

No. 2450.

Supreme Court of Nevada

May 19, 1920

Original mandamus proceeding by C. A. Norcross against George Cole State Controller. Peremptory writ ordered.

A. E Cheney and Frank H. Norcross, both of Reno, for petitioner.

Leonard B. Fowler, Atty. Gen., and Robert Richards, Deputy Atty Gen., for respondent.

George B. Thatcher, of Carson City, amicus curiæ.

COLEMAN C.J.

This is an original proceeding to obtain a writ of mandate, directing the state controller to issue his warrant in payment for certain services rendered in pursuance of an act of the Legislature (chapter 213, Stats. 1919, p. 387) to provide for cooperative agricultural and home economics extension work in accordance with the terms of the act of Congress known as the Smith-Lever Act (Comp. St. §§ 8877a-8877h). Section 2 of our statute authorizes the organization of county farm bureaus as a preliminary step in the carrying on of the work contemplated, and section 3 thereof reads in part as follows:

"The board of directors of the county farm bureau and the director of agricultural extension shall prepare an annual financial budget covering the county's share of the cost of carrying on the co-operative extension work in agriculture and home economics provided for in this act, together with the share of each of all other co-operating agencies; provided, that the county's share shall not exceed a sum equal to the proceeds of one cent of the county tax rate, which, if adopted by a majority vote of said bureau at a regularly called meeting, shall be filed with the board of county commissioners of such county, which said board shall include the county's share thereof in the budget of county expenditures for such year and shall annually, at the time of levying taxes for county purposes, levy a county tax, at a rate not exceeding one cent on each hundred dollars of taxable property, to provide such fund."

Section 4 provides:

"* * * There is hereby annually appropriated, out of any money in the state treasury not otherwise appropriated, a sum equal to the total appropriations of the several counties for the support of county agricultural and home economics extension work as provided in section three of this act, but shall not be greater in any year than the proceeds of one cent of the state tax rate: * * * Provided, that a certified copy of each such co-operative county budget shall be filed with the board of regents, the state board of examiners and the state controller within ten days after date of filing with the board of county commissioners."

It appears from the petition in this case that indebtedness has been incurred pursuant to the statute above mentioned, and that claims have been made and presented to and approved by the proper authorities. The only question which is raised upon this hearing is as to whether or not the statute in question makes an appropriation for the payment of said claims. No appropriation was made by the Legislature in the general appropriation bill to meet the expenses incurred under the statute in question. It is conceded by the respondent that the purpose sought to be attained by the statute is a worthy one.

Section 19, article 4, of our Constitution provides:

"No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of an appropriation made by law."

The rule requiring that no claim against the state can be paid until an appropriation has been made therefor by the Legislature had its origin in England, and grew out of the abuse by the sovereign of the privilege of expending the public funds. Parliament, with a view of limiting the amount which the sovereign might pay out of the public funds adopted a rule that no money should be paid out except in pursuance of an appropriation therefor. Hallam's Const. Hist. of England, Ed. 1862, c. 15, p. 555; Creasy on English Const. p. 293. The idea thus originating was carried into the Constitution of the United States and of most of the states of the Union. Except as limited by the Constitution, the Legislature has plenary power in authorizing the expenditure of the public funds for public purposes, and from a reading of the section of the Constitution quoted only one condition is imposed upon the Legislature, viz. the making of an appropriation of money in the treasury...