State ex rel. Bullock v. Babcock

• Decision Date: 06 July 1887
• Citation: 22 Neb. 33,33 N.W. 709
• Parties: STATE EX REL. BULLOCK v. BABCOCK, STATE AUDITOR.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

22 Neb. 33

33 N.W. 709

STATE EX REL. BULLOCK

v.BABCOCK, STATE AUDITOR.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

July 6, 1887.

Syllabus by the Court.

The appropriations made by the legislature, where there is no provision limiting particular cases to a shorter period, extend to the end of the first fiscal quarter after the adjournment of next regular session.

Where an appropriation was made by the legislature of 1885 for the purpose of sinking a well in the salt basin, and the legislature of 1887 adjourned sine die March 31, 1887, held, that the appropriation of 1885 continued in force until August 31, 1887. People v. Swigert, 107 Ill. 494;People v. Lippincott, 64 Ill. 256;People v. Needles, 96 Ill. 575,--approved and followed.

Submission of controversy.

The Attorney General, for petitioner.

MAXWELL, C. J.

This is an action to compel the defendant to draw a warrant on the treasury for the sum of $1,675. It is alleged in the petition, in substance, that in the year 1885 an act was passed by the legislature to provide for the sale and leasing of the saline lands of the state, and the development of the saline interests thereof, by which act it was provided that the board of public lands and buildings be required to have all of the saline lands of the state appraised, advertised, and sold, and the funds received therefor be deposited with the state treasurer, to constitute the saline fund of the state; that, for the purpose of securing a greater supply of brine than naturally flows on the salt basin, it was therein provided that, whenever the funds derived from the sale of said saline lands should be sufficient, said board of public lands and buildings was authorized and directed to enter into a contract in behalf of the state for the purpose of sinking a well on such salt basin, to such depth as, in the opinion of the board, would best subserve the interests of the state; that said board was authorized to issue vouchers to the contractor as the work progressed, upon which it was the duty of the auditor to draw his warrant upon the treasury against the saline fund for the amount of said voucher; that the sum of $5,000, or so much thereof as was necessary, was appropriated out of the saline fund of the state for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of said act; that, in pursuance of said act, the board of public lands and buildings caused the saline lands to be appraised, advertised, and sold, in the manner provided by law, and that lands to the amount of $20,027.50 had been sold, and the money received therefor placed in the treasury, and said sale was then adjourned; that in January, 1886, said board entered into a contract in writing with the relator, by the terms of which he was to sink a well on said salt basin, to the depth of 2,000 feet, for the sum of $10,000; that the relator has fully complied with the terms of said contract in each and every particular, and said board has issued vouchers to him to the amount of $465.64, upon which the auditor has drawn warrants on the saline fund; that on the twenty-sixth day of May, 1887, the relator completed said contract, and on said day the board of public lands and buildings issued a voucher to him for the sum of $1,675.10, which on the first day of June, 1887, with an itemized account, was duly presented to the auditor and indorsed by him: “Examined, but not paid for the reason the appropriation for developing the saline interest of the state, and upon which this claim is drawn, ended or lapsed March 31, 1887,” and for that reason the defendant refused to draw a warrant; that there is still in the saline fund in the state treasury the sum of $10,563.56; that the amount due the relator under said contract for sinking said well was for labor done and performed after the thirty-first of March, 1887, and before the twenty-sixth day of May thereafter, and that the legislature adjourned March 31, 1887, etc.

A copy of the contract is attached, and made a part of the petition. The contract is carefully drawn, and the rights of the state amply guarded and protected, and it is apparent that both parties have acted in the utmost good faith. The auditor is ready to perform his duty in issuing a warrant, but is in doubt as to the proper construction of the law. This action is brought under the provisions of section 567 of the...