Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

46 Cal. 73

Springer v. Green

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1873

California Supreme Court · decided 1873-07-01

<p>Application to the Supreme Court for writ of mandate to compel the Controller to draw his warrants on the State Treasurer in favor of the petitioner for twenty-six thousand three hundred and seventy-one dollars and ninety-one cents.</p> <p>The petitioner represented that he had presented his accounts for materials furnished and work done as State Printer to the State Board of Examiners, and that upon the report of the Printing Expert the Board had allowed the accounts to the amount of twenty-six thousand three hundred and seventy-one dollars and ninety-one cents; that he had applied to the Controller for warrants for the sum approved by the Board, and that the Controller had refused to draw warrants for any portion of the demand; that the Legislature, by the Act of April 1st, 1872, appropriated one hundred and twenty thousand dollars for “printing, paper, and official advertisements” for the two fiscal years ending June 30th, 1874, and that half the appropriation "remained unexhausted. The respondent in his answer set out that he had allowed claims of the State Printer to the amount of sixty thousand dollars-—one half the appropriation; that the State Board of Equalization had fixed the rate of taxation for the twenty-fourth fiscal year so as to raise but sixty thousand dollars of the appropriation, and that if compelled to draw for more than that sum, it would deplete the fund out of which other appropriations were payable; that the sum allowed by the Board of Examiners embraced items to the amount of about four thousand dollars that were not legal charges against the State; and that he had not audited the account because he was not satisfied that the work charged for was correctly computed, properly executed, or delivered.</p> <p>The petitioner held the office of State Printer for the term of four years, commencing on the 4th day of December, 1871, and the respondent held the office of State Controller for the same term. The sessions of the Legislature were biennial, commencing on the first Monday in December. The petition was filed at the April Term, 1873.</p>

Decided 1873-07-01

By the Court:

¶1Section five hundred and thirty-six of the Political Code requires the Controller of State, from time to time, to draw his warrants on the Treasurer for such sums as may be due the State Printer for public printing executed by him, payable out of any money not otherwise appropriated. “But he must audit no account, unless it is previously approved by the Board of Examiners, nor then, until he is satisfied that such work is correctly computed, properly executed and delivered, and that the account contains nothing but what is a legal charge against the State under the laws thereof.”

¶2It is impossible to construe this provision otherwise than as authorizing the Controller to decline to audit the accounts of the State Printer, even after they have been approved by the Board of Examiners, “until he is satisfied that such work is correctly computed, properly executed, etc., … and that the account contains nothing but what is a legal charge against the State.” This language is too explicit to admit of any reasonable doubt. The reason assigned by the Controller for refusing to audit the .petitioner’s account is, that the account contains items, amounting to about four thousand dollars, which are not a legal charge against the State, and that the work has been overcharged, and he is not satisfied that it has been correctly computed. "We think this is a sufficient answer to the petition, and that the statute confers upon the Controller authority to decide these questions, even after the account has been approved and allowed by the Board of Examiners.

¶3Petition dismissed, and application for mandamus denied.

/46/cal/73 · .json · Public domain