Stratton v. Green
Synopsis
Authority of Controller to Draw Warrants. — The authority and duty of the Controller of State to draw a warrant upon the Treasurer, is limited to eases in which he is authorized to draw such warrant by some law which provides a specific appropriation for the payment of the warrant so drawn.
Specific Appropriation.—A specific appropriation is an act by which a named sum of money has been set apart in the treasury and devoted to the payment of a particular demand.
Fund.—The Fund upon which a warrant must be drawn must be one the amount of which is designated by law, and therefore capable of definitive exhaustion.
Construction of Statute. — The seventeenth subdivision of section four hundred and thirty-three, Article YI, of the Political Code, repeals the provision of section six of the Act of 1869-70, in respect to the duty of the Controller to draw warrants in payment of salaries of the Tide Land Commissioners.
By the Court: This is an application for a writ of mandamus to be lirected to the Controller of State upon the following facts igreed by the parties:
“ I. That the petitioner now is, and since the 1st day of february, 1872, has been a member of the Board of Tide -land Commissioners, duly appointed,, qualified, and acting ssuch.
“ II. That the respondent now is, and since the 10th day [150]of January, 1872, has been Controller of State, duly elected, qualified, and acting as such.
“ III. That the salary of each member of the Board of Tide Land Commissioners is two thousand five hundred dollars per annum, payable quarterly out of the General Fund, on the first of January, April, October, and December, respectively.
“IV. That the salary of the petitioner for the quarter ending October 1st, 1872, amounting to six hundred and twenty-five dollars, was duly approved by the State Board of Tide Land Commissioners after the 1st of October, 1872.
“V. That after such salary had been so approved, the Secretary of the Commissioners duly certified the approval of the same to the respondent as Controller.
“VI. That the Legislature failed to make any appropriation for the.payment of said salary, except such as is to be found in the Act creating the office.
“VII. That petitioner has demanded of the respondent, Controller, that he draw his warrant upon the General Fund in the State Treasury in favor of petitioner for the said sum • of six hundred and twenty-five dollars, and the respondent has refused and still refuses to do so.”
The seventeenth subdivision of section four hundred and thirty-three, Article VI, of the Political Code, regulating the duties of the Controller of State, is as follows: “To draw warrants on the Treasurer for the payment of moneys directed by law to be paid out of the treasury; but no warrant must be drawn unless authorized by law and upon an unexhausted specific appropriation provided bylaw to meet the same. Every warrant must be drawn upon the Fund out of which it is payable, and specify the service for which it is drawn, when the liability accrued, and the specific appropriation applicable to the payment thereof.”
Under the provisions of this section of the Code the au
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)