Porter v. Hughes
| Decision Date | 26 January 1893 |
| Docket Number | Civil 306 |
| Citation | 32 P. 165,4 Ariz. 1 |
| Parties | W. W. PORTER, Petitioner, v. THOMAS HUGHES, Territorial Auditor, Respondent |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
MANDAMUS. Original application.
Granted.
W. W Porter, in persona.
William Herring, Attorney-General, for Respondent.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
The plaintiff, W. W. Porter, applies to this court for a peremptory writ of mandamus to be directed to the defendant Thomas Hughes, auditor of the territory, requiring him, as said auditor, to issue a warrant on the treasurer of the territory, in favor of the plaintiff, for the sum of twelve hundred dollars. This sum plaintiff claims to be due him for salary as one of the district judges of the territory for the years 1887 and 1888, under an act of the legislative assembly entitled "An act making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the civil government of the territory of Arizona for the two years ending on the thirty-first day of December, 1888, and for other purposes." This act is published in the appendix to the Revised Statutes of 1887. Among other items of appropriation enumerated in said act, is one numbered 17 therein, which reads as follows: "For territorial salaries of the district judges, as provided by law, to be expended under the direction of the territorial auditor, to be paid in quarterly installments, $ 7,200.00; one half to be expended in each of the years 1887 and 1888." Following the act as published in the appendix to the Revised Statutes, appears the following note: "Approved March 10, 1887, (except as to item No. 17, which was vetoed by the governor, and veto sustained by the body in which the act originated)." The case was heard upon an agreed statement of facts signed by the plaintiff and by Clark Churchill, attorney-general, for the defendant. The facts as agreed to are as follows: First that the petitioner was one of the associate judges of the supreme court for the years 1887 and 1888, and district judge; second, that the petitioner received from the territory during that time fifty dollars per month, and no more; third, that the governor signed the appropriation bill passed in the year 1887, as it appears in the appendix to the Revised Statutes; fourth, that in signing it he added that the same was approved, except as to subdivision 17 of section 1, which applies to appropriation for salaries of judges of the district court; fifth, that the auditor has refused a warrant for the amount claimed in the petition, or any other amount.
Under the pleadings and the facts as agreed to, there is but one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Wiseman v. Oklahoma Bd. of Corrections
...99 Idaho 404, 582 P.2d 1082, 1092 (1978); and Welden v. Ray, 229 N.W.2d 706 (Iowa 1975).37 For cases so holding, see Porter v. Hughes, 4 Ariz. 1, 32 P. 165, 166 (1893); Callaghan v. Boyce, 17 Ariz. 433, 153 P. 773, 782 (1915), (criticized in Fairfield v. Foster, 25 Ariz. 146, 214 P. 319 (19......
-
State ex rel. Tolerton v. Gordon
...Mo. 194; State v. Moore, 69 N.W. 377; Pickle v. Finley, 44 S.W. 481; Lukens v. Nye, 156 Cal. 503; State v. Holder, 76 Miss. 181; Porter v. Hughes, 4 Ariz. 1; Sprague Thompson, 118 U.S. 90; Warren v. Mayor, 2 Gray (Mass.) 84; Slauson v. Racine, 13 Wis. 398; State v. Dousman, 28 Wis. 541; Hin......
-
State v. French
... ... 204; ... Regents of the State University v. Trapp, Auditor, ... 28 Okla. 83, 113 P. 910; Peebly v. Childers, 95 ... Okla. 40, 217 P. 1049; Porter v. Hughes, 4 Ariz. 1, ... 32 P. 165; Callaghan v. Boyce, 17 Ariz. 433, 153 P ... 773; Fairfield v. Foster, 25 Ariz. 146, 214 P. 319; ... Black & ... ...
-
State ex rel. Wis. Tel. Co. v. Henry
...cited in margin.)2 Provisions of that limited character were construed in some of the cases cited above, and also in Porter v. Hughes, 4 Ariz. 1, 32 P. 165;Callaghan v. Boyce, 17 Ariz. 433, 153 P. 773;Black & White Taxicab Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 25 Ariz. 381, 218 P. 139;Regents of State U......