State ex rel. Francis v. Smith

• Decision Date: 30 April 1886
• Citation: 89 Mo. 408
• Parties: STATE ex rel. FRANCIS et al. v. SMITH.¹
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

89 Mo. 408

STATE ex rel. FRANCIS et al.

v.SMITH.¹

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1886.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; AMOS M. THAYER, Judge.

F. P. Blair and J. M. Holmes, for appellants. Leverett Bell, for respondent.

RAY, J.

This cause originated in the circuit court of St. Louis city. It is a mandamus proceeding, the object of which is to compel the respondent, who is auditor of the city of St. Louis, to audit and allow a voucher for $200 for current expenses of the police department, made out as follows: “The city of St. Louis to James L. Blair, vice and acting president, dr., two hundred dollars. For current expenses of the police department $200, police and all other salaries and current expenses.” This was duly certified as correct, and as having been approved by the board of police commissioners. Before the adoption of the scheme and charter, it would have been the duty of the auditor to audit and allow the account. This is not denied, but the respondent contends that the laws authorizing the auditor to allow it, in that general form, have been repealed by section 16, art. 16, of the charter of the city, (2 Rev. St. 1879, p. 1627,) which provides “that all claims against the board of police commissioners, including salaries, shall be paid out of the city treasury in the same manner as other claims against the city are paid, and said claims shall be certified to by the president and secretary of said board, and audited, as provided in this charter, for claims against the city; and all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with or in conflict with this section are hereby repealed.” It is further provided, by section 21, art. 4, of said charter, that it shall be the duty of the auditor of the city to examine, adjust, and audit all unsettled accounts, claims, and demands against the city, for the payment of which any money may be drawn from the city treasury, and, after having examined the same with all accompanying vouchers and documents, he shall certify thereon the balance or true state of such claim or demand, and draw his warrant on the treasurer in payment thereof; but no such claim or demand, or any part thereof, shall be audited against the city unless it is authorized by law or ordinance, and is in proper and fully itemized form, and unless the amount required for the payment of the same shall have been appropriated for that purpose by the assembly. It is further provided, by section 11, art. 5, of said charter, that no money shall...