State v. Maynard
Citation | 31 Wash. 132,71 P. 775 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. HEUSTON v. MAYNARD, State Treasurer. |
Decision Date | 24 February 1903 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Original application for a writ of mandate by the state of Washington on the relation of B. F. Heuston, against C. W. Maynard as treasurer of the state of Washington. Writ denied.
W. B Stratton, for respondent.
This is an original application for a writ of mandate to compel the State Treasurer to pay the interest upon a warrant issued by the state through its proper officers upon the state normal school fund, in consideration of work done and expenses incurred in the erection of a state normal school building for the Washington State Normal School at New Whatcom. The warrant was drawn pursuant to an act of the legislature approved March 7, 1895 (Laws 1895, p. 55). The fund upon which it was drawn was created by the first section of the act, which is as follows:
Sections 2 and 3 of the act appropriate from said funds for the purpose of erecting and equipping a state normal school at Cheney, $60,000, and for another at Whatcom, $40,000. Section 4 authorizes the issuance of bonds to the amount of $100,000, The state was never able to sell these bonds, and none were ever issued. Section 5 of the act is as follows:
Warrants were issued under this act between July 13, 1895, and April 30, 1897, to the amount of $100,000. Warrants numbered 1 to 4, inclusive, for $50 each, were issued on July 13, 1895; No. 5, for $900, on August 6, 1895; and No. 6, the warrant in this action, for $54.90, was issued on August 19, 1895. There has come into the state normal school fund from the sale of lands granted to the state for normal schools since 1895 the sum of $7,000, which is sufficient to pay the interest on warrants 1 to 6, inclusive, although not sufficient to pay the interest on all the warrants issued upon said fund. No part of this money has been paid out as interest or principal on any of the warrants, or otherwise, or invested as a permanent fund; nor has any part of this money been received as interest or income from said land grant or the proceeds thereof. The treasurer refuses to pay the interest upon relator's warrant for two principal reasons: (1) That the proceeds arising from the sale of normal school lands constitute a permanent fund, the interest or income only of which may be appropriated in support of said normal schools, and that the act of 1895, supra, is in contravention of the enabling act, because it undertakes to appropriate the proceeds themselves; (2) that no appropriation has been made for the payment of interest upon the warrants in question, or any of the warrants issued by authority of said act.
A determination of the first question involves the construction of the act of congress admitting the state into the Union, approved Feb. 22, 1889, and commonly known as the 'Enabling Act.' The provisions of that act relative to the question under consideration are as follows:
Section 12 grants 50 sections of unappropriated public lands for the purpose of erecting public buildings at the capital of each state for legislative, executive, and judicial purposes; and section 13 provides that 5 per centum of the proceeds of sales of public lands within the states, sold subsequent to the admission of the states, shall be paid to the states as a permanent fund for the support of the common schools.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Huckfeldt v. State Board of School Land Commissioners
... ... follows that the act of the Legislature of 1895 is void, in ... so far as it attempts to appropriate the proceeds of the ... lands granted for normal schools instead of the interest and ... income thereof." ( State ex rel. Heuston v ... Maynard, 31 Wash. 132, 71 P. 775.) ... The act ... of North Dakota was held void also upon the ground that it ... violated certain provisions of the Constitution to the same ... effect as that contained in section 11 of the enabling act, ... but the court say: ... "Perhaps ... it ... ...
-
State ex rel. Ledwith v. Brian
... ... Massachusetts Agricultural ... College v. Marden, 156 Mass. 150, 30 N.E. 555; ... People v. Davenport, 117 N.Y. 549, 23 N.E. 664; ... In re Agricultural Funds, 17 R.I. 815, 21 A. 916; ... Brown University v. Rhode Island Agriculture & Mechanic ... Arts, 56 F. 55. In State v. Maynard, 31 Wash ... 132, 71 P. 775, an act which directed that part of the ... proceeds of the normal school land grant in the enabling act ... of that state to be devoted to pay for the erection of normal ... school buildings in violation of the terms of the trust ... imposed by the grant was held ... ...
-
Evans v. Huston
...School. (State v. Fitzpatrick, 5 Idaho 499, 51 P. 112; Roach v. Gooding, 11 Idaho 244, 81 P. 642; State v. Maynard, State Treasurer, 31 Wash. 132, 71 P. 775; Sheldon v. Purdy, 17 Wash. 135, 49 P. 228; Mitchell v. Colgan, 122 Cal. 296, 54 P. 905; State v. McMillan, 12 N.D. 280, 96 N.W. 310; ......
-
State v. District Court in and for Sanders County
... ... would appear to indicate, exceptions may be read into it, and ... the entering wedge be inserted by which the safe guard may be ... entirely broken down and removed. The Supreme Court of ... Washington in State ex rel. Heuston v. Maynard, 31 ... Wash. 132, 71 P. 775, said: "The manner of the ... disposition of the sale of such lands *** is subject to the ... limitations contained in section 11 of the act." The ... Supreme Court of North Dakota in Board v. McMillan, ... 12 N.D. 280, 96 N.W. 310, said: "Perhaps it is not ... ...
-
§ 12.2 - Lands Managed by the Department of Natural Resources
...The Omnibus Enabling Act restricts disposal of the lands and requires establishment of several permanent funds. See State v. Maynard, 31 Wash. 132, 71 P. 775 (1903). The lands are to be held, appropriated, and disposed of exclusively for the purposes for which they were granted, as describe......
-
Table of Cases
...(1946): 19.3(2), 19.3(5)(d) State v. Long, 98 Wn. App. 669, 991 P.2d 102, review denied, 140 Wn.2d 1025 (2000): 19.5(1) State v. Maynard, 31 Wash. 132, 71 P. 775 (1903): 12.2(2)(a)(i) State v. Nw. Magnesite Co., 28 Wn.2d 1, 182 P.2d 643 (1947): 13.2 State v. O'Brien, 83 Wn.2d 878, 523 P.2d ......