State v. Hallock

• Decision Date: 17 August 1889
• Docket Number: 1,307.
• Citation: 22 P. 123,20 Nev. 326
• Parties: STATE ex rel. LYON COUNTY v. HALLOCK.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

22 P. 123

20 Nev. 326

STATE ex rel. LYON COUNTY v. HALLOCK.

No. 1,307.

Supreme Court of Nevada

August 17, 1889

Petition by the board of county commissioners of Lyon county for a writ of mandamus to J. F. Hallock, state comptroller, requiring him to draw his warrant on the state treasury for the amount of the expenses incurred by them in a special election held February 18, 1889, as certified to him.

W. E F. Deal, for relator.

The Attorney General, for respondent.

BELKNAP J.

At the session of the legislature of 1889, a law was enacted requiring a special election to be held upon the 18th day of February of that year for the purpose of submitting to the people certain proposed amendments to the constitution of the state. St. 1889, p. 14. Under the general laws pertaining to elections the counties respectively were chargeable with the expense, and in order to reimburse them the sum of $15,000 of the unappropriated moneys in the state treasury was set apart by a law approved by the governor January 23, 1889. St. 1889 p. 21. The second section of the law reads as follows "Sec. 2. The boards of county commissioners in the respective counties in this state shall immediately after ascertaining the expenses of said election certify the same to the state comptroller, who shall, upon the receipt of said certificate, draw his warrant upon the state treasurer in favor of the chairman of each board of county commissioners for the amount so certified, as being the expenses of said special election in each county." Under the provisions of this section the board of county commissioners of Lyon county certified, that the expenses of the county amounted to the sum of $1,032.15, and demanded of the comptroller his warrant therefor. The demand was refused, and thereupon relator commenced this proceeding by mandamus to compel the issuance of the warrant.

The petition alleges, among other things that the state board of examiners audited the claim of the county for the sum of $775.20, and that respondent has tendered his warrant upon the state treasury for this amount. The question is whether the legislature can require the comptroller to draw his warrant for the amount ascertained to be due by the board of county commissioners, or whether the state board of examiners, under the provisions of the constitution, should have audited the claim. The constitution (article 5, § 21) provides:

"The governor, secretary of state, and attorney general shall constitute a board of state prison commissioners, which board shall have such supervision of all matters connected with the state prison as may be provided by law. They shall also constitute a board of examiners, with power to examine all claims against the state, (except salaries or compensation of officers fixed by law,) and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law. And no claim against the estate (except salaries or compensation of officers fixed by law) shall be passed upon by the legislature without having been considered and acted upon by said board of examiners." The statutes relating to the enforcement of claims against the state provide that a claim for which an appropriation has been made,

...