State Ex Rel. Williams v. Lee
| Decision Date | 03 December 1935 |
| Citation | 121 Fla. 815,164 So. 536 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. WILLIAMS v. LEE, State Comptroller. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Original proceeding in mandamus by the State of Florida, on the relation of John W. Williams, against J. M. Lee, as Comptroller of the State of Florida, wherein a motion was made to quash the alternative writ.
Motion denied, and issuance of peremptory writ ordered conditional upon failure to file answer or return.
COUNSEL James N. Daniel, of Chipley, for relators.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Ira A. Hutchison, Asst. Atty. Gen for respondent.
This is an original proceeding in mandamus and is before us on motion to quash the alternative writ.
In short, the alternative writ alleges that John W. Williams in December, 1932, was appointed and commissioned by the Governor of Florida as an assistant state auditor for a term of four years; that he immediately entered upon the duties of the office and duly performed the same until May 31, 1935 except during two periods of time when he was suspended from office by the Governor; that he was suspended from office by the Governor on March 29, 1933, and reinstated on the 15th day of May, 1933; that he was again suspended by the Governor on the 16th day of August, 1934, and was reinstated by the action of the Senate in refusing to sustain the suspension on the 31st day of May, 1935; and that immediately after being so reinstated he resigned from the said office. It alleges that there is due him for the periods during which he was suspended the sum of $2,758.32. It alleges that during all the time from the date of his appointment to May 31, 1935, the salary fixed by statute to be received by assistant state auditors was $250 per month but that for the month of February, 1933, he was paid only $225; for the month of March, 1933, he was paid only the sum of $210; for the month of May, 1933, $212.50; for the months of June, July, August, September, October, November, and December, 1933, and January and February of 1934, he was paid only $225 per month for each month and for the months of March, April, May, June, and July, 1934, he was paid $200 for each month; for the month of August, 1934, he was paid $159.72. Therfore, he claims that there is due him for unpaid salary for those months for which he received a part of the salary the sum of $459.44. He alleged that he has made demand upon the State Comptroller for the payment of the sum of $459.44 due him as aforesaid, as well as for the sum of $2,758.32; that he has made his requisition for such amounts, but that the comptroller has refused to draw a warrant on the State Treasurer for either of said amounts.
The alternative writ required the comptroller to draw his warrant on the State Treasurer for the respective amounts named or show cause why he should not do so.
The comptroller filed motion to quash the alternative writ upon the following grounds, to wit:
'1. That the allegations is the alternative writ fail to show a duty which the respondent is by law required to perform and in which he has failed of performance.
'2. That the allegations of the writ fail to show that there are any funds or money in the treasury of the state of Florida appropriated for and applicable to the payment of the claim of relator.
The first ground of the motion must be overruled because chapter 12279, Acts of 1927, created the State Auditing Department of the State of Florida and provided for the appointment of a State Auditor and ten assistant state auditors. See sections 229 to 237, inclusive, C.G.L.
Section 234, C.G.L., being section 8 of chapter 12279, fixed the salary of State Auditor at $4,500 per annum, payable monthly, and each of the assistant state auditor's salary at $3,600 per annum. Section 237, C.G.L., being section 11 of chapter 12279, Acts of 1927, provided as follows:
auditors .................... $14,500.00
'The general printing for the auditing department shall be paid out of the general fund appropriated for printing and advertising.
'The State auditor shall approve all bills for salaries and traveling expenses before same shall be paid.'
Chapter 15719, Acts of 1931, Ex.Sess., appropriated an annual salary of $30,000 for ten assistant state auditors, equivalent to a salary of $3,000 annually for each assistant auditor.
Chapter 15858, Acts of 1933, appropriated salaries for the State Auditing Department in the sum of $66,350. In this act the salaries were not itemized, so we are not advised as to how much was appropriated for each of the assistant state auditors. The appropriation covered the biennium from July 1, 1933, to July 1, 1935, but the provisions contained in section 237, C.G.L., supra, are sufficient to constitute a continuing appropriation, unless some appropriation was definitely made for a lesser sum, and as the appropriation made in chapter 15719, Acts of 1931, Ex.Sess., was for a lesser sum for each assistant state auditor, that is $3,000 per year, we must assume that this was the last legislative expression limiting the salary to be paid to assistant state auditors.
Section 15, article 4, of our Constitution, which authorizes the suspension or removal of officers, provides, amongst other things:
'No officer suspended who shall under this section resume the duties of his office, shall suffer any loss of salary or other compensation in consequence of such suspension.'
Section 23 of article 4, provides:
'The Comptroller shall examine, audit, adjust and settle the accounts of all officers of the State and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law.'
Section 3 of article 16 provides: 'The salary of each officer shall be payable monthly upon his own requisition.'
Section 11 of article 16 is not an inhibition against the payment of this claim because it is not a claim for extra compensation nor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. West v. Gray
...Act.) (Emphasis supplied.) See also In re Advisory Opinion of the Justices, 145 Fla. 375, 199 So. 350, and State ex rel. Williams v. Lee, 121 Fla. 815, 164 So. 536. The Florida rule is well established in other states of the Union, with Constitutions similar to ours, that when an office is ......
-
State ex rel. West v. Gray
...Appropriation Act.) (Emphasis supplied.) See also In re Opinion of the Justices, 145 Fla. 375, 199 So. 350, and State ex rel. Williams v. Lee, 121 Fla. 815, 164 So. 536. The Florida rule is well established in other states of the Union, with Constitutions similar to ours, that when an offic......
-
Flack v. Graham
...by petitioner. This Court has, however, previously addressed the question of the source of the funds. In State ex rel. Williams v. Lee, 121 Fla. 815, 164 So. 536 (1935), we held that the constitutional proscription against appropriations from the treasury except by law, article IX, section ......
-
Randall v. Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement
...precedents." Lee v. Dowda, 155 Fla. 68, 19 So.2d 570, 572 (1944). They constitute merely persuasive authority. State ex rel. Williams v. Lee, 121 Fla. 815, 164 So. 536, 538 (1935). Logically, the degree of persuasiveness of a particular advisory opinion will depend upon the reasonableness o......