State Bd. of Agriculture v. Brady

• Decision Date: 17 February 1915
• Docket Number: No. 9903.,9903.
• Citation: 266 Ill. 592,107 N.E. 781
• Parties: STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE v. BRADY, Auditor of Public Accounts, et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

266 Ill. 592

107 N.E. 781

STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE

v.BRADY, Auditor of Public Accounts, et al.

No. 9903.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 17, 1915.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sangamon County; James A. Creighton, Judge.

Petition by the State Board of Agriculture for a writ of mandamus against James J. Brady, Auditor of Public Accounts, and another. From a judgment dismissing the petition, the petitioner appeals. Affirmed.George B. Gillespie and A. M. Fitzgerald, both of Springfield, for appellant.

P. J. Lucey, Atty. Gen., and George P. Ramsey, of Springfield, for appellees.

CARTWRIGHT, C. J.

The eighty-sixth paragraph of the act entitled ‘An act to provide for the ordinary and contingent expenses of the state government until the expiration of the fiscal quarter after the adjournment of the next regular session of the General Assembly,’ in force July 1, 1913 (Laws 1913, p. 95), made appropriations of various sums to the appellant, the state board of agriculture. Included among the items were the following: For the salary of secretary $3,500 per annum, for salary of chief clerk $2,000 per annum, receiving and shipping clerk $1,200 per annum, stenographer $1,200 per annum, statistical clerk $1,200 per annum, janitor $600 per annum, and filing clerk $1,000 per annum, amounting in the aggregate to $10,700. The appellant petitioned the circuit court of Sangamon county for a writof mandamus commanding the appellee James J. Brady, auditor of public accounts of the state, to issue his warrant for said aggregate sum, directed to the appellee William Ryan, Jr., treasurer of the state, payable to appellant, and commanding the treasurer to pay the same, and alleged a demand and refusal to perform such acts. The appellees demurred, and the court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition. The appellant removed the record by appeal to the Appellate Court for the Third District, and that court, finding that it was without jurisdiction, transferred the cause to this court.

The appellant moved the court to remand the cause to the Appellate Court, and the motion was reserved to the hearing and taken for decision on submission of the cause. Section 118 of the Practice Act provides that appeals in cases in which the state is interested, as a party or otherwise, shall be taken directly to this court. The judge of the circuit court certified, in accordance with section 104 of the Practice Act, the following questions of law arising in the case, with his decision thereon:

(1) ‘Whether the provisions of the omnibus appropriation bill in relation to vouchers, certification of the Governor and other formal requirements for the issue of an auditor's warrant and drawing money from the state treasury for salaries, expenses, and other lawful expenditures of the board of agriculture, apply to such items, or whether the provisions of the act creating the board of agriculture, and amendments thereto, have application.

(2) ‘Whether the state Civil Service Act, with amendments thereto, has application to the state board of agriculture, and whether salaries of officers and employés of the state board of agriculture must be certified by the civil service commission, as required by the provisions of said act, before any funds appropriated to the state board of agriculture may be drawn from the state treasury for the use of said board.’

His decision was that the provisions of the Appropriation Act and the state Civil Service Act both applied to the state board of agriculture, and that the money of the state could not be withdrawn from the state treasury except upon compliance therewith. The interest of the state authorizing an appeal to this court must be direct and substantial, and the state has such an interest in this case, which seeks to take the money of the state out of its treasury. The state has a direct, substantial, and monetary interest in the subject-matter of the controversy. McGrath v. People, 100 Ill. 464;Canal Com'rs v. Sanitary District, 191 Ill. 326, 61 N. E. 71. The motion is denied.

The second section of the act making the appropriations in question authorized and directed the auditor of public accounts to draw warrants on the state treasurer for all sums appropriated by the act for the pay of clerks, secretaries, porters, messengers, janitors, watchmen, policemen, laborers, engineers, firemen, stenographers, curators, librarians, and other employés, when not otherwise provided for by law, to be paid on monthly pay rolls duly certified to, respectively, by the heads of departments, or by boards of commissioners and trustees, requiring the services of such employés. The claim of the appellant to a right to receive the total sum appropriated for pay of the several employés mentioned in the act making the appropriations is based on section 7 of the act to revise the law in relation to the department of agriculture, agricultural societies, and agricultural fairs, and to provide for reports of the same (Laws 1883, p. 1), as amended in 1913 (Laws 1913, p. 3). That section provides that whatever money shall be appropriated to the department of agriculture shall be paid to the state board of agriculture and may be expended by the board as in the opinion of said board will best advance the interests of agriculture, horticulture, manufactures, and domestic arts in this state, and it also provides for a division of appropriations made for the benefit of county fairs or agricultural societies among such fairs or societies holding annual fairs. The appropriations in question in this case were not made to the state board of agriculture, to be expended for the advancement of the interests of agriculture, horticulture, manufactures, or domestic arts; but the...