County of Kern v. Woody

WASTE, C. J. Petitioner, a political subdivision of the state, seeks by this petition for a writ of mandate to obtain a favorable interpretation of the provisions of the Unemploy[535]ment Relief Bond Act of 1933 (Stats. 1933, p. 677), particularly those provisions of the act relating to the repayment by political subdivisions of the state of money borrowed from the state under the provisions of the act. The parties have stipulated that the issuance of an alternative writ of mandate is waived and that the matter may be submitted for decision upon the petition, the demurrer of the respondent thereto, and the points and authorities of the respective parties filed herein.

At certain dates, beginning on November 20, 1933, and ending with July 31, 1934, the County of Kern, by proceedings duly had by the board of supervisors, borrowed from the state of California, under the terms of the act above referred to, sums amounting in the aggregate to $215,000, and duly executed and delivered promissory notes therefor. In accordance with the terms and provisions of these notes a ten per cent instalment of principal upon each of them became due and payable on July 1, 1937. Subsequently, the county board of supervisors appropriated from the general county fund an amount sufficient to and for the purpose of repaying the instalment of principal together with accrued interest. At the same time, the board of supervisors directed the respondent auditor to prepare and issue a warrant drawn on the treasurer of the county, payable to the state treasurer, and in an amount equal to the ten per cent instalment of the matured principal, with interest, accrued upon the total obligations to the state. The respondent refused to obey, basing his refusal upon the ground that, as the petitioner did not, nor did its board of supervisors on its behalf, at the time of applying for and of securing the loans, provide “other means of repayment”, the county did not have the power or authority to repay the loans other than by deductions from the “Gas Tax”, that is, the “Motor Vehicle Fuel Fund”, and that moneys raised by local taxation are not legally available for such repayments. Following such refusal, the county brought this proceeding. Respondent has demurred.

The refusal of the respondent to draw and issue the warrant was justified by the provisions of the Unemployment Relief Bond Act. Its terms are so clear that, we deem only a brief discussion necessary. An alleged “ambiguity” between the language of sections 2 and 23 of the act, asserted by amici curiae, fades into nothingness when all the provisions