Territory ex rel. Donzelmann v. Grant

• Decision Date: 28 January 1889
• Citation: 21 P. 693,3 Wyo. 241
• Parties: TERRITORY ex rel. DONZELMANN, Attorney General, v. GRANT, Territorial Auditor
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

21 P. 693

3 Wyo. 241

TERRITORY ex rel. DONZELMANN, Attorney General, v. GRANT, Territorial Auditor

Supreme Court of Wyoming

January 28, 1889

Questions reserved and certified from district court.

Application of Hugo Donzelmann, attorney general, for mandamus to one Grant, territorial auditor. On the hearing of questions reserved and certified to the supreme court for determination, the writ was denied.

Writ denied.

Hugo Donzelmann, pro se, for relator.

Bryan Seevers & Stewart, for defendant.

SAUFLEY J.

OPINION

SAUFLEY, J.

The attorney general of the territory filed in the district court of the First judicial district his petition against the auditor of the territory for the writ of mandamus to compel the latter to audit a claim of the former against the territory for expense incurred in the rental of rooms for an office for the use of the attorney general, and also to compel the auditor to issue his warrant upon the treasurer for the amount of the claim. It is alleged by the relator that the tenth legislative assembly made an appropriation of $ 600 as a contingent fund, to be used and expended by him as attorney general during the two years intervening between the 31st March, 1888, and 31st March, 1890, and that the rental price of the rooms for his office is a necessary and proper expense, and should be liquidated out of the contingent appropriation. The auditor in his answer justifies his refusal to allow the claim and issue his warrant upon the alleged ground that the territory had, prior to the incurring by the attorney general of the obligation for rent, prepared and designated rooms in the capitol building for the use of the attorney general, free of rental or other charge, and contends that no rooms for an office, except those provided by the territory, are necessary to enable the relator to discharge his official duties. Other pleadings were filed by the parties, not varying, however, from the legal effect of the averments of the petition and answer. Pursuant to the act of March 9, 1888, the district court reserved and certified to this court for its decision three several questions arising upon the pleadings, of which, however, this court does not deem it necessary to respond to but one. That question is, "Has the auditor, defendant herein, discretionary power to allow and audit the claim involved in this proceeding?" The solution of this question depends upon section 10 of chapter 90 of the Session Laws of the Tenth Legislative Assembly, construed with reference to the uncontroverted allegation of the auditor, that rooms had been set apart in the capitol building for the use of the attorney general. Section 10 reads as follows: "That the sum of $ 6,600, or so much thereof as may be necessary, be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of any funds in...