State v. Hopkins

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: [12 Wash. 603] SCOTT, J.
• Citation: State v. Hopkins, 12 Wash. 602, 41 P. 906 (Wash. 1895)
• Decision Date: 21 September 1895
• Parties: STATE EX REL. BARTON v. HOPKINS, COUNTY AUDITOR, ET AL.

41 P. 906

12 Wash. 602

STATE EX REL. BARTON v. HOPKINS, COUNTY AUDITOR, ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 21, 1895

Appeal from superior court, Thurston county; T. M. Reed, Jr., Judge.

Application on relation of W. E. Barton, against George S. Hopkins and another to compel defendants, as county auditor and treasurer, respectively, the first to issue a warrant on the "incidental fund," and the latter to transfer thereto money from the general fund or order of commissioners. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the petition, relator appeals. Affirmed.

Milo A Root, for appellant.

Troy &amp Falknor, for respondents.

SCOTT, J.

The relator, at the instance of the county commissioners performed services for the county in sinking a well to supply the courthouse with water, for which work the commissioners allowed his bill, and ordered the county auditor to draw a warrant therefor upon a fund designated as the "incidental fund," which had been created by an order of the commissioners, who from time to time directed the county treasurer to transfer to the credit of said fund moneys from the general county fund. The respondents Hopkins, and Gelbach, were, respectively, auditor and treasurer of said county. The auditor refused to draw the warrant upon the fund specified, and the treasurer refused to transfer moneys from the general fund to the credit of the so-called "incidental fund." Whereupon the relator instituted this proceeding for a mandamus against said officers to compel them to comply with the orders made by the commissioners. The respondents demurred to the relator's petition on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained by the superior court, and this appeal has been prosecuted therefrom. Some questions have been argued in the relator's brief which we are not called upon by the record to decide. One of these is as to the validity of certain outstanding county warrants upon the general fund. It is also claimed in the relator's brief that, unless the county commissioners have authority to transfer moneys from the general county fund to an incidental fund to meet the necessary current expenses of the county, the conduct of the county's business, owing to the state of its finances will be greatly impeded and interfered with, if not rendered impossible, in view of the fact that this court has held, in Mason v. Purdy,...