State v. The Atchison
| Decision Date | 06 July 1912 |
| Docket Number | 17,598 |
| Citation | 125 P. 107,87 Kan. 565 |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, ex rel. JOHN S. DAWSON, as Attorney-general, etc., Plaintiff, v. THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY et al., Defendants |
Decided July, 1912.
Original proceeding in mandamus.
This proceeding having been brought to determine under what circumstances the state grain department could inspect grain at the cost of the owner without his consent, an order was made that in doubtful cases the inspection fees should be deposited with the clerk of this court to await the decision of the question. The court decided that five of the elevators were operated as public warehouses until December 6, 1911 and were liable for inspections made prior to that time, but that otherwise the defendants were not liable for inspection charges. (The State, ex rel., v. Railway Co., ante pp. 348, 365, 124 P. .) It follows that the fees collected from these five elevators for inspections made prior to December 6, 1911, belong to the state, and that the other fees collected belong to the persons who paid them.
We are asked to order that the money in the hands of the clerk belonging to the state be appropriated, so far as necessary to the payment of the costs of the case for which the state is liable. We think such an order would be beyond our authority. The statute provides. that all fees collected for grain inspection shall be turned into the state treasury, forming a fund which has been appropriated by the legislature to the payment of the expenses of the grain department. (Laws 1911, ch. 199, §§ 2, 3.) The clerk of the court was made the temporary custodian of the money collected to insure its being paid to the persons found to be entitled to it. The court has no control over it except to see that such purpose is carried out. The costs of this litigation, so far as they fall upon the plaintiff, may properly be regarded as expenses of the department, but payment from the revolving fund can be made only upon vouchers verified by the chief inspector. It is unfortunate that those who are entitled to fees for services rendered in the case, for which the state is liable, must submit to delay in receiving what is justly due them, but the hardship results from the necessities of the case. Payment of the state's obligations can only be made as provided by statute, and since no specific appropriation has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial