State v. McMillan
Decision Date | 15 November 1913 |
Docket Number | 2,085. |
Citation | 136 P. 108,36 Nev. 383 |
Parties | STATE EX REL. BEEBE v. MCMILLAN, STATE TREASURER. |
Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Original proceeding for writ of mandate by the State of Nevada, on the relation of G. H. Beebe, against William McMillan, as Treasurer of the State of Nevada. Demurrer overruled, with leave to answer.
William Forman, of Tonopah, for petitioner.
George B. Thatcher, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Relator applies for a writ of mandate commanding the State Treasurer to pay out of the a claim which has not been approved by the Board of Examiners. It is agreed that the case be considered as standing upon demurrer to the petition, and the question argued, and which the court is requested to determine, is whether the State Treasurer may properly pay claims against this fund without the approval of the Board of Examiners and the warrant of the State Controller. The respondent has taken the safer course by refusing to pay before an adjudication of the statute is obtained.
The Legislature at its last session passed an act entitled "An act relating to the compensation of injured workmen in the industries of this state and the compensation to their dependents where such injuries result in death, creating an industrial insurance commission, providing for the creation and disbursement of funds for the compensation and care of workmen injured in the course of employment, and defining and regulating the liability of employers to their employés; and repealing all acts and parts of acts in conflict with this act." Laws 1913, c. 111. It provides for the "Nevada Industrial Commission," to be composed of the Governor, State Mining Inspector, Attorney General, and two others to be selected by the three named, that a majority of these shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of the business of the commission, and for a state insurance fund to be derived from premiums to be paid by employers, based on percentages of monthly pay rolls, in cases where notice of rejection of the terms of the act is not served by the employer or employé.
Section 24 provides that all premiums designated in the act shall be paid to the State Treasurer, and shall constitute the state insurance fund for the benefit of employés and their dependents.
Section 40 provides that the state shall not be liable for the payment of any compensation under the act except from the state insurance fund, to be derived from the payment of these premiums, and section 41 that the expenses of administration shall not exceed 10 per cent. of the amount of the premiums paid into this fund.
Differently from the provisions generally existing in other states, our Constitution provides that the Governor, Secretary of State and Attorney General shall "constitute a Board of Examiners with power to examine all claims against the state except salaries or compensation of officers fixed by law." Article 5, § 21. The organic act also provides, at section 19, art. 4, that no money shall be drawn from the state treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law, and at section 22, article 5, that the Secretary of State, State Treasurer, and State Controller shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law.
Section 4459 of the Revised Laws provides that:
Section 4157 provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Certified Question, In re
...commission would direct disbursements, the state treasurer is vested only with ministerial duties); State ex rel. Beebe v. McMillan, 36 Nev. 383, 388-389, 136 P. 108 (1913) (by statute, the state insurance fund is a special fund and regarding disbursements, not subject to the requirements o......
-
Kan. Bldg. Indus. Workers Comp. Fund v. State
...(“It is a fund which belongs to industry, in which the state has no interest other than its proper administration.”); State v. McMillan, 36 Nev. 383, 388, 136 P. 108 (1913) (premiums could not be used or made available for payment of ordinary expenses of state government); State v. Padgett,......
-
State v. State Board of Education
... ... examiners. ( State v. Iverson, 125 Minn. 67, 145 N.W ... 607; Commonwealth v. Dollar Savings Bank, 259 Pa ... 138, 102 A. 569, 1 A. L. R. 1048; State v. Taylor, ... 33 N.D. 76, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 583, 156 N.W. 561, L. R. A ... 1918B, 156; State v. McMillan, 36 Nev. 383, 136 P ... 108; State v. Collins, 21 Mont. 448, 53 P. 1114.) ... The ... funds derived from the various land grants are trust funds ... Not only are they permanent funds in the control of the ... state, and hence in the control of the state treasurer, but ... the ... ...
-
State ex rel. Williams v. Musgrave
...191 N.W. 839; State ex rel. Olson v. Jorgenson, 29 N.D. 173, 150 N.W. 565; 37 C.J.S. Fund or Funds, page 1404. In State ex rel. Beebe v. McMillan, 36 Nev. 383, 136 P. 108, the Nevada court held, under constitutional and statutory provisions the same as ours, that the state insurance fund is......