State v. Bloxham

• Decision Date: 11 July 1900
• Citation: 42 Fla. 501,28 So. 762
• Parties: STATE ex rel. WILLIAMS v. BLOXHAM, Comptroller.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

28 So. 762

42 Fla. 501

STATE ex rel. WILLIAMS v. BLOXHAM, Comptroller.

Florida Supreme Court

July 11, 1900

Mandamus on the relation of J. H. Williams against William D. Bloxham state comptroller. Alternative writ dismissed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Proceedings by mandamus begun against the state comptroller to compel him to audit and draw a warrant upon the state treasury to pay an account claimed by relator against the state will be dismissed where the term of office of the official expires before final decision, and his successor in office is not made a party defendant, or notified to defend the proceedings.

COUNSEL

M. C. Jordan, for plaintiff.

OPINION

CARTER J.

This is an original proceeding by mandamus to compel defendant to audit and draw his warrant upon the state treasury to pay an amount claimed by relator to be due him as a court stenographer for services rendered during the trial of two criminal cases at the fall term, 1894, of the circuit court of Duval county, under appointment of the judge of said court, made in accordance with the statute. The defendant's return to the alternative writ was filed December 10, 1895. Relator moved to quash the return, and for a permptory writ, and to advance the cause for final hearing. The motion to advance was denied, and the cause is now reached for hearing upon regular call of the docket.

We judicially know that the term of office of the Honorable William D. Bloxham, as comptroller, expired in January, 1897 and that he is, and has been since said date, the governor of this state. The duties sought to be enforced by this proceeding appertain to the office of comptroller, and under the law no individual or official other than the incumbent of that office has any authority or power to perform them. The power of the defendant to audit relator's claim and to draw a warrant therefor upon the state treasury has ceased to exist, and devolves upon his successor in office, who has not been made a party to these proceedings, or notified of their pendency in this court, so far as we are advised. A peremptory writ against the defendant would not only require him to perform an act which it is no longer his province or duty to perform, but which, if performed by him, would be wholly illegal and nugatory. The proceeding cannot be regarded in any sense as a suit against the state, because the state cannot, in our courts, be sued by an individual. The proceeding is, therefore, either a personal one against the defendant as an individual to compel him to perform a personal duty devolving upon him because of his official position, or it is one against the official which appertains to the office of comptroller, regardless of the person who actually occupies it. In either event, the result must be the same, for in the one case the power of the defendant to perform the required duty, and in the other his power to represent the office or official sought to be coerced in this litigation, has ceased to exist by reason of...