State ex rel. Colorado River Commission of Arizona v. Frohmiller
Decision Date | 25 November 1935 |
Docket Number | Civil 3702 |
Parties | STATE OF ARIZONA ex Rel. COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION OF ARIZONA and JOHN L. SULLIVAN, as Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Petitioner, v. ANA FROHMILLER, as Auditor of the State of Arizona, Respondent |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Original proceeding in Mandamus. Alternative writ quashed.
Mr John L. Sullivan, Attorney General, for Petitioner.
Mr Terrence A. Carson, for Respondent.
The state of Arizona, on the relation of the Colorado River Commission, hereinafter called the commission, and John L. Sullivan, as Attorney General of the state, hereinafter called the Attorney General, filed a petition in this court for a writ of mandamus directed against Ana Frohmiller, as auditor of the state, hereinafter called respondent, asking that she be ordered to approve a certain claim of James R. Moore against the state, and to draw a warrant on the state treasurer for the sum of $5,000 in payment thereof. The alternative writ was issued and the matter is before us on the petition and the return.
The questions involved are solely of law, the facts being in nowise in dispute, and we may state these facts so far as necessary for a decision of the case as follows: The commission was created by chapter 3 of the regular session of the Ninth Legislature (1929). Among its powers as set forth in said chapter are the following:
By chapter 6 of the regular session of the Twelfth Legislature (1935), an appropriation for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of chapter 3, supra, was made in the following language:
Prior to January 23, 1935, proceedings were pending in the Supreme Court of the United States which materially affected the rights of the state in the Colorado River, and on the date last mentioned at a meeting of the commission the following resolution was adopted:
"That the Attorney General's designation of Mr. J. R. Moore as Special Assistant to the Attorney General to represent Arizona's interests in the pending suit in the United States Supreme Court and to act for the Commission in all matters other than in connection with the pending negotiation with the Secretary of the Interior and the other basin states, be approved, and that Mr. Moore's compensation in such capacity, as suggested by the Attorney General, be fixed at $10,000.00 per annum, beginning January 7, 1935, payable semi-monthly, together with necessary expenses and disbursements, to continue until otherwise agreed, and subject to termination at any time by the joint action of the Attorney General and the Commission."
In pursuance thereof, the Attorney General appointed Mr. Moore, and the latter took an oath of office as Special Assistant Attorney General as of January 18, 1935, and thereafter appeared before the Supreme Court of the United States and successfully defended the interests of Arizona in the action then pending. Mr. Moore continued to perform various services on behalf of the state under this appointment until October 7, 1935, at which time the commission, after reciting the necessity of further protection of the interests of the state in the Colorado River through various legal proceedings, adopted the following resolution:
And on said date the Attorney General did employ Mr. Moore and Mr. Strouss in accordance with such resolution. Immediately thereafter Mr. Moore presented his claim to the auditor for the sum of $5,000, being the amount of his retainer as set forth in the foregoing resolution which, by its terms, was then payable, the claim having been approved by the Governor and the Attorney General. On October 17th the auditor informed the Attorney General that she declined to approve the claim for the following reasons:
Whereupon the commission and the Attorney General, claiming that the interests of the state were being seriously injured and jeopardized by the failure of the auditor to approve the claim, filed their petition herein.
The respondent answered, admitting all of the allegations of the petition, except that the interests of the state were being injured by the failure of the auditor to approve the claim, and in reply to such last allegations maintained that they were merely conclusions of law, and further alleged that Mr. Moore had been named by the commission as Assistant Attorney General; that he had acted under said appointment from January 18, 1935, up to and including the 15th day of October of that year; and that by reason of his accepting and retaining such position he was precluded from claiming the $5,000 involved in this proceeding as a retainer under the resolution of the commission above set forth. The respondent further demurred to the petition on the ground that (1) the petitioners had no beneficial interest in the subject-matter of the action and were, therefore, not entitled to maintain it, and (2) that the petition showed on its face that it did not state a cause of action.
while section 17 of article 22 is in the following language:
"All State and county officers (except notaries public) and all justices of the peace and constables, whose precinct includes a city or town or part thereof, shall be paid fixed and definite salaries, and they shall receive no fees for their own use."
It is contended by respondent that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thatcher v. City of St. Louis
... ... are imposed upon him by law. State ex rel. Barrett, ... Attorney General, v ... Const.; State ex ... rel. v. Frohmiller, 52 P.2d 483, 53 P.2d 854. (b) The ... Attorney ... 162, 10 ... S.W. 473; Little River Drain. Dist. v. Lassater, 29 ... S.W.2d 716; ... cite State ex rel. Colorado River [343 Mo. 604] ... Commission v ... ...
-
Patton v. Mohave County
...deputy." With the exception of its heading, the earlier statute was virtually identical to the present one. In State v. Frohmiller, 46 Ariz. 413, 52 P.2d 483 (1935), the Arizona Supreme Court interpreted the earlier statute to mean that the deputy of any state or county officer was also an ......
-
City of York v. Reihart
...County, 31 Or. 424, 50 P. 530; Blick v. Mercantile Trust & Dep. Co., 113 Md. 487, 77 A. 844. State ex rel. Colorado River Commission v. Frohmiller, 46 Ariz. 413, 424, 52 P.2d 483, 488 (1935). Under the above formulations it is apparent that the employment contract in question provides for a......
-
McDonald v. Frohmiller
... ... Bureau of Criminal Identification of the State of Arizona, and as Assignee of DANIEL B. O ... State ex ... rel. Colo. River Comm. of Arizona v ... Frohmiller, ... 'board,' or 'commission,' used in law, is ... meant any office, board or ... are so limited. The Supreme Court of Colorado has had this ... question before it repeatedly ... ...