Wood v. Waggoner
Decision Date | 08 July 1940 |
Docket Number | 8317. |
Parties | WOOD v. WAGGONER et al. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Minnehaha County; Lucius J. Wall, Judge.
Mandamus proceeding by Benjamin Wood against Alvin Waggoner and others, as members of the State Department of Social Security, and as members of the State Social Security Commission, to compel the defendants to approve the application of plaintiff for old age assistance. From a judgment granting the writ, the defendants appeal.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Leo A Temmey, Atty. Gen., and Benj. D. Mintener, Asst. Atty. Gen for appellants.
Doyle & Mahoney, of Sioux Falls, for respondent.
This cause originated through an application for a writ of mandamus commanding the State Social Security Commission to convene and approve the application of plaintiff for old age assistance. The learned trial court granted the writ and the defendants appealed. The appeal presents but a single question on the merits, namely, does the fact that a son-in-law is voluntarily providing plaintiff with subsistence of the character described by the Social Security Act (Chapter 220, Session Laws of 1937, SDC 55.36), foreclose his claim for old age assistance?
Before we reach that question certain preliminary contentions must receive attention.
The Director of Social Security was not made a defendant in this action. Predicated upon that fact appellants contend that the writ should have been quashed because its commands extend beyond the scope of the powers of the Commission and involve those of the Director. We think the express words of the act offer conclusive answer to this contention. Chapter 220 Session Laws of 1937, supra. By section 3 thereof (SDC 55.3603), it is provided "There is hereby created a State Department of Social Security to be administered by a State Social Security Commission * * *." And by section 6 thereof (SDC 55.3604), it is provided "The Commission shall be responsible for the adoption of all policies, rules, and regulations for the government of the State Department and for carrying out such public welfare functions as may be vested in the State Department, and all administrative and executive duties of the State Department shall be discharged by the Director subject to the authority of the Commission. * * *" We think the Commission has power to receive and approve an application and direct the payment of old age assistance in a particular case.
It is next contended that the writ should have been quashed because mandamus will not lie to control the discretion of the State Social Security Commission. It is clear that the action taken by the Department resulted from its construction of the Social Security Act. The issue here is whether the Department misinterpreted the statute. This court is committed to the view that conduct prompted by misconstruction of the law constitutes "arbitrary action" or "abuse of discretion" justifying resort to mandamus, and this contention of appellants must therefore be overruled. State ex rel. Cook et al. v. Richards, 61 S.D. 28, 245 N.W. 901. Cf. People ex rel. Freeman v. Department of Public Welfare et al., 268 Ill. 505, 14 N.E.2d 642.
It is further contended by the appellants that in creating these claims against itself in the nature of gratuities the State intended to withhold the right to resort to the courts and to limit aggrieved applicants to recourse by appeal within the administrative agency it set up. We content ourselves with the observation that the Legislature has not indicated an intention to grant the Department unfettered discretion in dispensing old age assistance, and although it provided for no appeal to the courts from a determination of the Department, we fail to find any indication of an intent to cut off appropriate judicial remedies. Cf. Dismuke v. United States, 297 U.S. 167, 56 S.Ct. 400, 80 L.Ed. 561.
Thus we come to the merits and turn to Chapter 220, Session Laws of 1937 (SDC 55.36), supra, for answer to the question which we have phrased. The pertinent provisions are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial