State ex rel. Lamkin v. Hackmann

Citation204 S.W. 513,275 Mo. 47
PartiesTHE STATE ex rel. UEL W. LAMKIN, Superintendent of Public Schools, v. GEORGE E. HACKMANN, State Auditor
Decision Date13 June 1918
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Writ granted.

A. T Dumm for relator.

(1) Mandamus is the proper remedy. State ex rel. v Gordon, 236 Mo. 142; State ex rel. v. Wilder, 199 Mo. 470; State ex rel. v. Wilder, 196 Mo. 429; State ex rel. v. Meier, 143 Mo. 447; Mansfield v. Fuller, 50 Mo. 339; 26 Cyc. 235, 236; 19 Am. & Eng Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 782-785; High, Extra. Rem. (3 Ed.), sec 104; Merrill on Mandamus, sec. 126. (2) And the return in the nature of a demurrer to the petition for the writ (which, under the stipulation, stands as and for the alternative writ itself) admits the facts pleaded in the petition. State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 256 Mo. 714; State ex rel. v. Gordon, 231 Mo. 559; State ex rel. v. Cook, 171 Mo. 354; High, Extra. Rem. (3 Ed.), sec. 449. (3) Mandamus being the proper remedy, and the facts alleged in the petition being admitted, the only question remaining for the court to decide is as to the law applicable to the admitted facts, and the law being clearly in relator's favor, the peremptory writ of mandamus should be awarded. Sec. 10922, R. S. 1909; Laws 1917, p. 10, sec. 22; Secs. 10920, 11813, R. S. 1909; High, Extra. Rem. (3 Ed.), sec. 449.

Frank W. McAllister, Attorney-General, Thomas J. Cole and John T. Gose, Assistant Attorneys-General, for respondent.

(1) A demurrer only admits those facts which are well pleaded. Paving Co. v. Fleming, 251 Mo. 222; Meek v. Hurst, 223 Mo. 696; Donovan v. Boeck, 217 Mo. 70. (2) Relator's right must be clear. "It is a principle of the law of mandamus that the relator must have a clear right to the performance of the act sought to be coerced by the mandate of the court." State ex rel. v. Thomas, 245 Mo. 71. "In order for the writ of mandamus to be available, it is essential that the relator have a clear legal right to the thing demanded, and it must be the imperative duty of the respondents to perform the act required." 19 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 725; State ex rel. Doud v. Lesueur, 136 Mo. 452; State ex rel. v. Appling, 191 Mo.App. 592; High on Extraordinary Remedies, sec. 12, p. 17.

FARIS, J. Walker, J., dissents in a separate opinion.

OPINION

In Banc.

Mandamus.

FARIS J.

This is an original proceeding by mandamus to compel the respondent, who is the State Auditor, to audit for payment two expense-accounts for traveling expenses incurred by the petitioner, who is the State Superintendent of Public Schools.

The issuance of an alternative writ was waived by the respondent and it was agreed that the petition for the writ should stand for all purposes as and for the alternative writ.

The pleadings state the case. The first count, omitting formal parts, and parts already substantially stated, runs thus:

"Your petitioner says that, in the month of July, 1917, in connection with and in the discharge of the duties of his office as Superintendent of Public Schools of Missouri, as aforesaid, he attended the annual meeting of the National Education Association at the City of Portland, State of Oregon; that petitioner is, and, at the time hereinabove mentioned was, a member of said National Education Association; that said National Education Association is constituted and composed of the superintendents of the public schools of the various States of the Union, and of leading teachers and educators throughout the United States; and that the purpose of the organization of said National Education Association, and of the annual meetings of the same held in different cities of the country, is to promote, foster and encourage the cause of public education, and to elevate the standard and efficiency of the instruction given in the various States of the Union, and throughout the United States generally; and that the attendance of your petitioner at said annual meeting of said National Education Association, in the City of Portland, Oregon, in said month of July, 1917, was by him believed to be, and your petitioner alleges that it was, useful and necessary to the proper and efficient discharge of the duties of his said office, and tended to promote and advance the cause of public education in Missouri, and to elevate the standard and efficiency of the instruction given in the public schools of this State; and that his attendance at said meeting was authorized by the laws of this State prescribing his powers and duties, and more particularly by the provisions of Section 10922, Revised Statutes 1909.

"Your petitioner says that, in attending said annual meeting of said National Education Association, at the time and place aforesaid, he actually expended the sum of $ 140.65, and that said amount was the reasonable and actual expense of his said attendance at said meeting, including necessary railroad fare, hotel bills, and other expenses reasonably and actually necessary to his attendance at said meeting; and that no personal expenses were or are included in said above-mentioned sum.

"Your petitioner says that thereafter, and on the 5th day of September, 1917, he presented to the said George E. Hackmann, State Auditor as aforesaid, his account in said sum of $ 140.65 (which said account had theretofore been duly approved by petitioner as Superintendent of Public Schools of Missouri) for allowance as a claim against the State of Missouri, as authorized and provided by said Section 10922, Revised Statutes 1909, and to be paid out of the moneys appropriated for the contingent and traveling expenses of the department of education, said moneys being appropriated by Act approved April 11, 1917, entitled 'An Act to appropriate money for the support of the state government, the payment of the contingent and the incidental expenses of the state departments,' etc., and being Section 22, page 10, of Laws of Missouri 1917; that at the time your petitioner presented said account to the said George E. Hackmann, State Auditor as aforesaid, for allowance, there was, and is now in the State Treasury, to the credit of the traveling expense account of the moneys appropriated for the contingent and traveling expenses of the department of education, more than sufficient money to pay said account of $ 140.65; and that it then and thereupon became the duty of the said George E. Hackmann, State Auditor as aforesaid, to audit and allow said account in said sum of $ 140.65; but your petitioner says that the said George E. Hackmann, State Auditor as aforesaid, wrongfully failed and refused, and does still wrongfully fail and refuse, to audit and allow said account in said sum of $ 140.65, or in any other sum, for the reason, as your petitioner is informed and believes, that it is the opinion and decision of the said George E. Hackmann, State Auditor as aforesaid, that your petitioner is not entitled to have audited and allowed, as a claim against the State of Missouri, any expenses made or incurred by him outside the State of Missouri.

"Your petitioner says that he is remediless in the premises by or through ordinary process or proceedings at law, and he therefore prays this Honorable Court to issue its writ of mandamus directing and commanding the said George E. Hackmann, as the State Auditor of Missouri, to audit and allow your petitioner's said claim in said sum of $ 140.65, and for such other relief as to the court may seem meet and proper in the premises."

The second count is a substantial rescript of the first count, except that it is bottomed upon expenses incurred in a trip to Washington, D. C., the nature of which is thus set forth:

"First: To consult with the Federal Board for Vocational Education regarding the terms under which Federal money should be made available for the State of Missouri for the purposes of reimbursements to school districts for moneys expended for the salaries of teachers of trade, industrial, home economics subjects, and teachers of agriculture, and for the training of such teachers. Your petitioner says that said Federal Board is created by act of Congress, and is appointed by the President to administer the Smith-Hughes Act, under which moneys are annually granted to the various States for the above purposes; that said Federal Board notified both your petitioner and the Governor of Missouri that the State of Missouri should be represented at said meeting; that the law of Missouri (Sec. 3, page 513, Laws 1917) vests the disbursements of moneys received by the State for the above purposes in the State Board of Education, and that your petitioner, as Superintendent of Public Schools, as aforesaid, is ex-officio chairman of said State Board of Education, and is designated by Section 11, page 516, Laws of Missouri 1917, as the executive officer of said board for the administration of said act.

"Second: To attend, at the same time and place, a conference of State Superintendents of seven States, Missouri being one of them, said conference being called by Hon. P. P. Claxton, United States Commissioner of Education, appointed by the President, and directing general educational affairs throughout the United States, said conference being called to consider the condition of the public schools and the work of the public schools in said seven States during the period of the war and immediately following the war."

To this petition and to both counts thereof respondent demurred. His demurrer, omitting formal parts, runs thus:

"1st. Because neither said first nor second count states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this respondent.

"2nd. Because neither said first nor second count is sufficient in law.

"3rd. Because it appears upon the face of said first and second counts and each of them, that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT