State v. Hackmann
| Decision Date | 22 December 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 21861.,21861. |
| Citation | 217 S.W. 271 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. MEALS v. HACKMANN, State Auditor. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
This is a proceeding by mandamus issuing out of this court on the part, of the state of Missouri, at the relation of Olga Meals, against Hon. George E. Hackmann, state auditor, to compel the payment of certain money claimed to be due to the petitioner. Upon the filing of the petition, an alternative writ was issued, and to this alternative writ the respondent has filed a return in the nature of a demurrer. The cause is submitted for decision upon the issues so made up.
The facts are simple. In the petition it is alleged, in substance, that the respondent, George E. Hackmann, is the duly elected, qualified, and acting state auditor of the state of Missouri, and was so at all times in the petition mentioned; that at such times the Governor, state auditor, state treasurer, secretary of state, and Attorney General, by virtue of certain provisions of the Constitution of the state of Missouri, composed the board of equalization of this state, with power under the Constitution to adjust and equalize the valuation of real and personal property among the several counties in the state and to perform such other duties as might be prescribed by law; that by section 11410 of article 4 of chapter 117 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1909 the board of equalization is given power "to send for persons and papers to administer oaths through its officers or agents and to take all evidence it may deem necessary to ascertain the value of the property in the different counties of the state"; that on the 20th day of February, 1917, by proper proceedings on the part of said board, the petitioner was employed as an agent of said board, and was duly ordered to prepare a comparative statement of the value of real and personal property for the years 1916 and 1917, and to secure information as to the value of all classes of taxable property in the different counties of the state; that he entered upon the discharge of his duties aforesaid on the 28th day of February, 1917, and so continued until the 21st day of June, 1917; that he thereupon presented to the said board of equalization an account in the sum of $624.60 for the services so rendered by him, which account was by the board, on the 16th day of November, 1918, duly approved; that thereafter relator presented said account to respondent for audit, allowance, and payment, as a claim against the state of Missouri, but that respondent wrongfully failed and refused to audit and allow the account or to draw his warrant upon the state treasurer in relator's favor in the said sum or any sum; that thereafter the Fiftieth General Assembly of this state passed an act appropriating the sum of $624.60 to the payment of relator's said account; that the said act was duly approved by the Governor on the 7th day of June, 1919, and that there was at that time, and now is, in the state revenue fund, not otherwise appropriated, sufficient money to pay said account; that said act contained an emergency clause; that since the enactment of said act relator has presented his said account to respondent and again demanded payment thereof, but that respondent, in his official capacity aforesaid still refuses to allow said account or to draw his warrant upon the state treasurer in relator's favor therefor; that relator is remediless in the premises by the ordinary processes of law; and that he therefore prays for a writ of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent to draw his warrant upon the state treasurer in relator's favor for the amount aforesaid.
As stated, the cause is submitted for judgment upon the respondent's return to this petition, and our alternative writ issued thereon. The return is a demurrer upon the ground, as alleged, that no facts are stated sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the respondent. No brief is filed on the part of the respondent.
A. T. Dumm, of Jefferson City, for relator.
Frank W. McAllister, Atty. Gen., and John T. Gose, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
WILLIAMSON, J. (after stating the facts as above).
All of the questions involved in this case have been decided by this court, and in view of that fact a brief memorandum would suffice, but for the legislative mandate requiring us to file a written opinion in every case. In obedience to that statute, however, we proceed to set forth, with somewhat greater fullness, the reasons upon which the decision hereinafter announced is based.
The demurrer to the petition and writ admits, of course, all facts which are well pleaded, and no suggestion is made that any fact alleged is not well pleaded. The simple question to be determined, then, is whether or not,, under the facts stated, the relator is entitled to have respondent issue his warrant in payment of the account in the pleadings mentioned.
The state board of equalization (hereinafter called the board) is a body created by section 18 of article 10 of the Constitution of Missouri, which is as follows:
In pursuance of the power thus granted by the Constitution and by the statute the board, as is admitted by the pleadings in this case employed the relator to prepare a comparative statement of the value of real and personal property for the years 1916 and 1917, and to secure reliable information as to the relative value of all classes of personal property in the different counties of the state. It is alleged and admitted that the services were rendered, and that the charge therefor is a just and reasonable charge. There can be no question of the power of the board to take such steps as were necessary in order to secure this information. State ex rel. Bybee v. Hackmann, 207 S. W. 64; State ex rel. Kelly v. Hackmann, 275 Mo. 636, 205 S. W....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Nute v. Bruce, 32375.
...admitted as true. State ex rel. v. Hackman, 283 Mo. 469, 223 S.W. 575; State ex rel. v. Gordon, 238 Mo. 168, 142 S.W. 315; State ex rel. v. Hackman, 217 S.W. 271; State ex rel. v. Bates County, 303 Mo. 641, 362 S.W. 344. (a) In such case and state of the record as here shown, the petition f......
-
Poole & Creber Market Co. v. Breshears
...show beyond reasonable doubt that they are constitutional. State ex rel. Rodes v. Warner, 197 Mo. 650, 94 S.W. 962; State ex rel. Meals v. Hackmann, 334 Mo. 503, 217 S.W. 271; State v. Shelby, 333 Mo. 1036, 64 S.W. (2d) 269; St. Louis v. Liessing, 190 Mo. 464, 89 S.W. 611; Commonwealth v. P......
-
State ex rel. Nute v. Bruce
... ... to the petition therefor. This puts the cause at issue ... [State ex rel. v. Gordon, 238 Mo. 168, 142 S.W. 315, Ann ... Cas. 1913 A, 312.] The allegations of the petition demurred ... to stand admitted. [ State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 256 ... Mo. 710, 165 S.W. 801; State ex rel. v. Hackmann, ... 283 Mo. 469, 223 S.W. 575.] ... In ... determining whether or not the respondent had jurisdiction to ... try the cause pending before him, it is first necessary to ... decide if the petition states a cause of action in equity ... The petition contains many irrelevant ... ...
-
Sherrill v. Brantley
... ... render the statute constitutional, it is the duty of the ... court to adopt the construction which is constitutional ... State ex rel. Hawes v. Mason, 153 Mo. 49; State ... ex rel. Tel. Co. v. Atkinson, 271 Mo. 42; State ex ... rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, 318 Mo. 870; ... circumstances or facts will be presumed by the courts to have ... been found by the legislative authority. State ex rel ... Meals v. Hackmann, 217 S.W. 273; State ex rel. Kelly ... v. Hackmann, 275 Mo. 636, 205 S.W. 163; Ex parte ... Renfrow, 112 Mo. 598; State v. Wiley, 109 Mo. 443; ... ...