Van Veen v. County of Graham

• Decision Date: 02 April 1910
• Docket Number: Civil 1103
• Citation: 108 P. 252,13 Ariz. 167
• Parties: E. B. VAN VEEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE COUNTY OF GRAHAM, Defendant and Appellee
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

108 P. 252

13 Ariz. 167

E. B. VAN VEEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE COUNTY OF GRAHAM, Defendant and Appellee

Civil No. 1103

Supreme Court of Arizona

April 2, 1910

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, in and for Graham County.Frederick S. Nave, Judge.Reversed and judgment rendered.

The appellant, as court reporter for the fifth judicial district incurred certain expenses in attending sessions of the district court in Graham county, away from his official residence, his accounts for which were approved by the district judge, and allowed by the board of supervisors of Graham county, except as to such portions as were for board and lodging at the place of holding court, which was disallowed.Appellant refused to accept the allowed portions of his claims, and within the time provided by law brought suit for the recovery of the whole amount, viz., the sum of $101.75.A general demurrer was interposed to the complaint which was by the court sustained.Appellant refusing to amend, judgment for costs was thereupon entered in favor of defendant, from which judgment this appeal is taken.

W. C McFarland and John W. Murphy, for Appellant.

Lee N Stratton, District Attorney, for Appellee.

OPINION

DOE, J.

-- The complaint unquestionably states a valid cause of action, provided the disallowed items were properly chargeable to the county.Paragraph 14, section 15, chapter 74, Laws of 1907, provides: "The court reporter shall be allowed his actual traveling expenses in attending the district court away from his official residence, his account for which, when approved by the presiding judge shall be allowed and paid as other claims against the county wherein said court is held."And the only question raised by this appeal is whether appellant's board and lodging at the place where the court was held are a proper charge under this provision of the statute.

Our attention has not been called to any case in which the expressions "actual traveling expenses" or "traveling expenses" have been defined.The statutory provision above quoted is substantially the same as that contained in paragraph 1488, chapter 19, of the Revised Statutes of 1901, which provides that he shall receive "his actual traveling expenses in attending any district court."Ever since the enactment of the 1901 provision we are advised that it has been the uniform practice of district attorneys and boards of supervisors throughout the territory to construe the words "actual traveling expenses" as including the board and lodging of the reporter during his attendance upon terms of court away from his home.In the absence of judicial construction...