State ex rel. Daily v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 31 March 1867
• Citation: 41 Mo. 13
• Parties: STATE ex rel. PETER P. DAILY, Petitioner, v. ALONZO THOMPSON, State Auditor, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

41 Mo. 13

STATE ex rel. PETER P. DAILY, Petitioner,

v.ALONZO THOMPSON, State Auditor, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1867.

Application for Mandamus.

Isaac T. Wise, for petitioner.

R. F. Wingate, for respondent.

FAGG, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an application for a mandamus upon the State Auditor, made by Peter P. Daily, clerk of the Criminal Court of St. Louis county, requiring him to audit and settle a bill of costs accompanying the petition. and to draw his warrant therefor. The bill of costs is shown to have been approved and duly certified by the judge of said court and the circuit attorney for St. Louis county in the manner required by law.

The question presented for determination arises upon a demurrer to the petition, and the facts upon which the application is made are therefore to be taken as true. This question is analogous to the one decided by this court in the case of Morgan v. Buffington, 21 Mo. 549. In that case, the petitioner, being a member of the House of Representatives, presented his claim for services in that capacity, duly made out and certified by the speaker and clerk of the House in the manner prescribed by the statute. It was claimed that the account was to be taken as audited, and that the Auditor had no right or power to go behind this certificate and inquire into the correctness of the claim. It was held by the court, that from the very nature of his office, and the powers and duties conferred upon him by law, there was no doubt of his authority to do this. This position was also taken in the case of the State ex rel. McMurtry v. Auditor, in 37 Mo. 176. The power of the Legislature to make a voucher conclusive upon the Auditor so as to require him, without an investigation, to draw his warrant upon the Treasurer, was not denied.

By the express terms of the statute the Auditor is made “the general accountant of the State.” He is required to “audit, adjust and settle all claims against the State, payable out of the treasury, except only such claims as may be expressly required by law to be audited and settled by other officers and persons”--G. S. p. 86, §§ 10 & 13, ch. 10. The 31st section of the same chapter provides as follows; “If any person interested shall be dissatisfied with the decision of the Auditor on any claim, account or credit, the auditor shall, at the request of such person, certify his decision, with his reasons therefor, specifying the items rejected, if less than the whole, under the seal of his office, and refer the same to the General Assembly.” These preliminary matters have been set out for the purpose of showing the extent of the powers conferred upon this officer by law. In the very nature of the case they are large, and cover every class of claims against the State, unless otherwise expressly provided for by law. The wording of the statute is peculiar, and leaves no room to imply the power of any other...