State v. Wheeler

• Decision Date: 07 February 1928
• Docket Number: 21013.
• Citation: 146 Wash. 513,263 P. 946
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. HEGLAR et al., Game Com'rs, v. WHEELER, County Auditor.

263 P. 946

146 Wash. 513

STATE ex rel. HEGLAR et al., Game Com'rs, v. WHEELER, County Auditor.

No. 21013.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 7, 1928

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Whitman County; R. L. McCroskey, Judge.

Prayer for writ of mandate by the State on the relation of Will R Heglar and others, Game Commissioners for Whitman County Wash., against H. H. Wheeler, Auditor for Whitman County. Writ granted, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

W. L La Follette, Jr., and S. R. Clegg, both of Colfax, for appellant.

John D. Evans, of St. John, Pickrell & Stotler, of Colfax, and John H. Dunbar and E. W. Anderson, both of Olympia, for respondents.

HOLCOMB, J.

The Whitman county game commissioners presented claims to the county auditor for payment. He refused to pay them without first submitting them to the board of county commissioners for examination and allowance. Upon such refusal, the county game commissioners brought action to compel the county auditor, by mandate, to issue his warrants in payment of the claims. Upon hearing, upon stipulated facts, the trial judge granted the mandate.

The sole question involved here is whether the auditing and allowance of the claims by the game commission, without also having been submitted to and allowed by the board of county commissioners, is sufficient under our present game code.

The trial judge entered a memorandum opinion in the matter, which we here set out in full, with the exception of the formal parts:

'The relators composing the board of game commissioners of Whitman county seek in this suit to compel the defendant as county auditor, to issue warrants for certain charges audited by the relators as the board of game commissioners and payable out of the game fund of the county.

'It is stipulated by the parties that on August 5, 1927, at a regular meeting of the board of game commissioners, the claims were duly audited, allowed, and filed with the defendant, but have not been allowed by the county commissioners.

'Relators contend that under chapter 178, § 32, of the Laws of 1925 (Extraordinary Session), claims of this character must be paid by auditor's warrants without presentation to the board of commissioners for their approval; while defendant contends that section 4086, Remington's Codes, prohibits his issuance of warrants without approval by the board of commissioners, citing State ex rel. Egbert v. Blumberg, 46 Wash. 270, 89 P. 708, and State ex rel. Beach v. Olsen, 91 Wash. 56, 157 P. 34.

'In order to determine the intention of the Legislature in its enactment of the Game Code of 1925, as it relates to payment of claims, it is necessary to examine to some extent the previous history of legislation on this subject, and its connection with the general law laying down the duty of the county auditor. Section 4086, supra, provides that the auditor 'shall audit all claims, demands and accounts against the county which by law are chargeable to said county, except such cost or fee bills as are by law to be examined or approved by some other judicial tribunal or officer. Such claims as it is his duty to audit shall be presented to the board of county commissioners for their examination and allowance.'

'In the Game Code prior to the enactment of the 1925 law, it was provided (section 5965, Rem. Code): 'That all payments made under the provisions of this act shall be made by warrant in the usual manner and shall be audited by the state and county officers in the same manner as other claims against the state of Washington and the various counties are audited.'

'The case of Egbert v. Blumberg, cited by defendant, involved a claim for fruit inspection which the county auditor refused to pay unless approved by the board of commissioners. It was held that he was not authorized to draw a warrant for the claim unless so approved. That case, however, is not decisive here. The fruit inspection law there under consideration made no provision for the audit of such claims by the fruit inspector, nor did it in any manner relieve the board of commissioners from passing upon and approving such claims. There the claim was against the county.

'In the case of Beach v. Olsen, above mentioned, the game warden sought to require the auditor to issue a warrant for his salary and certain expenses, without presentation of these claims to the board of county commissioners. The court held that since the Game Code as it then existed required all claims to be audited by the county officers, in the same manner as other claims against the various counties are audited (section 5965, Rem. Code), the auditor was not justified in issuing the warrant without the assent of the board of commissioners. The Legislature in its Extraordinary Session of 1925, c. 178, § 32, provides that: 'All payments from the state game fund or county game fund authorized by this act shall be made by county or state warrants respectively, and all claims against the county game fund shall be audited by the county game commission in their respective counties, and all claims against the state game fund shall be audited by the supervisor of game and game fish.' 'The Game Code in effect at the time of the enactment of 1925 specifically required the county commissioners to approve claims against the game fund, and this was upheld by the court in the case of Beach v. Olsen, supra. Thereafter the Game Code of 1925 was enacted, authorizing the game commission to audit these claims. Since section 4086 relieves the auditor from presenting to the board of county commissioners for examination and allowance claims which it is not his duty to audit, and by the strongest possible inference requires him to issue warrants for such claims without presentation to the board of commissioners, he is here charged with the duty of issuing warrants without such presentation.

'Technically, a claim against the game fund is not a charge against the county. The fund is provided from various sources, including hunting licenses, fines in connection with hunting, and game and similar sources. It is not raised by taxation, and the county commissioners have no supervision over it. The game commission is given authority to buy and sell property useful to the conservation of game, and perform other functions entirely removed from other supervision.

'I conclude that relators are entitled

...