Sawyer v. Mayhew

• Decision Date: 10 May 1897
• Parties: SAWYER v. MAYHEW, State Auditor.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

71 N.W. 141

10 S.D. 18

SAWYER v. MAYHEW, State Auditor.

Supreme Court of South Dakota

May 10, 1897

Original application by H. W. Sawyer for a writ of mandamus to compel H. E. Mayhew, state auditor, to draw a warrant. Denied.

T. H Null, for relator. Horner & Stewart, for respondent.

FULLER J.

Plaintiff who is the secretary of the board of railroad commissioners applies originally to this court for a mandamus to compel the auditor of this state to draw a warrant upon the state treasurer for $50.47 in payment of the following itemized expense account:

"State of South Dakota, to H. W. Sawyer, Dr.

Jan'y 28/97..... Hotel, Pierre, 1/28 to 2/1 $800

Feb'y 21/97.... Hotel, Pierre, 2/17 to 2/21 800

Mar 8/97. Expenses on trip to Des Moines and Chicago:

Mar. 8. Breakfast, dinner, Huron .......................... 100

Mar. 8. Supper, Hawarden ................................... 50

Mar. 8. Hack, Des Moines ................................... 25

Mar. 9/10. Street-car fare, Des Moines...................... 30

Mar. 10. Hotel bill, Des Moines ........................... 250

Mar. 10. Lunch ............................................. 25

Mar. 10. Hack .............................................. 25

Mar. 10. Sleeper, Hawarden ................................. 50

Mar. 11. Hotel, Hawarden .................................. 100

Mar. 18. Expenses, Chicago, from 11th to 18 .............. 1000

Mar. 27. Breakfast, Rock Rapids ............................ 50

Mar. 27. Dinner, Hawarden .................................. 50

Mar. 27. Supper, Huron ..................................... 50

Mar. 27. Sleeper, Chicago to Hawarden ...................... 50

Apl. 9. Hotel, Pierre, 3/29 to 4/12 ...................... 1425

Apl. 9. Stamps ............................................ 167

-----

$5047

State of South Dakota, County of Hughes. H. W. Sawyer certifies that the foregoing account is just and true (or were actually paid for the the necessary expense of this affiant, while in the discharge of his official duty), and that the prices therein mentioned are just and correct, and that this bill, nor any part thereof, has been paid. H. W. Sawyer.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of April, 1897. Philip Lawrence, Notary Public, South Dakota."

The paper containing the foregoing statement and the following indorsement thereon, was the only voucher presented for the defendant's approval or rejection:

"As chairman of the board of railroad commissioners, I hereby certify the within account to the auditor of the state of South Dakota for the issuance of his warrant upon the treasurer in accordance with the provisions of an act entitled 'An act to provide for the establishment of a board of railroad commissioners, etc.,' approved March 8th, 1889. W. H. Tompkins, Chairman."

In refusing to issue the warrant demanded, the defendant, upon the account rendered, made the following notation:

"Warrant for within claim is refused until receipts for money alleged to have been expended are attached, or until satisfactory evidence is furnished to show that alleged expenses were actually incurred, according to the tenor of letter from state auditor under date of Jan. 6, 1897, copies of which were served upon members of railroad commission, and of which claimant has had due notice. H. E. Mayhew, Auditor, by E. F. Swartz, Deputy."

One of the rules formulated by the defendant upon assuming his official duties, and to which particular attention is directed in his letter of January 6, 1897, is: "That where claims are presented for money expended, in addition to the itemized voucher, a receipt from the party receiving the money will be required in all cases without exception. Sheriffs, members of the state boards, and all officers presenting bills for traveling and other expenses, will be required to attach to the voucher presented to this office a receipt for any and all sums expended by them. Blank receipts will be furnished upon application."

According to Webster's Dictionary, and in ordinary acceptation, the noun "auditor" is used to designate "a person appointed and authorized to audit or examine an account or accounts, compare the charges with the vouchers, examine the parties and witnesses, allow or reject charges, and state the balance. One who hears judicially," etc. Section 69 of the Compiled Laws provides that: "All accounts and claims against the state which shall be by law directed to be paid out of the treasury thereof shall be presented to the auditor, who shall examine and adjust the sums which shall be found due from the state and shall issue warrants payable at the state treasury," etc. It will thus be seen that the legislature has not only invested the auditor with power to hear and determine, but by express enactment required him to investigate and adjust, every claim for expenses against the state presented for the issuance of a warrant upon funds appropriated and payable at the state treasury. Counsel's contention that the defendant, by rejecting the claim for the reasons stated, in effect refused to act officially, and that mandamus is, therefore, a proper remedy, is not entitled to favorable consideration. In the absence of a statute to the contrary, the auditor, in the management of his official affairs, may make and enforce rules that are reasonable and consistent with sound public policy. As a matter of fact, the number and character of demands upon the treasury for money suggests the necessity of systematic methods and regulations by which the auditor may, in the orderly performance of his trust, require, act upon, and for his own protection retain in the official archives, the best proof of which a claim against the state is susceptible. A receipt from one to whom money...