State ex rel. Bradshaw v. Hackmann
Supreme Court of Missouri
Mandamus. (1) The demurrer filed by respondent does not admit relator’s conclusions of law as set out in the petition, but only the facts well pleaded. State ex rel.
Read the full summary
Mandamus. (1) The demurrer filed by respondent does not admit relator’s conclusions of law as set out in the petition, but only the facts well pleaded. State ex rel. Lamkin v. Hackmann, 204 S. W. 514; Paving Company v. Fleming, 251 Mo. 222. (2) Neither the statute creating the office, nor the act making the appropriation for the State Warehouse Department designates, or suggests, any duties to be performed outside of the the State, and therefore expenses incurred in traveling beyond the limits of Missouri do not constitute a legal charge against the public funds. Laws 1913, p. 354; Laws 1915,…
1Opinion of the CourtFaris, J.
This is an original proceeding in three counts, brought by relator, who is the State Warehouse Commissioner, against respondent as State Audi- or, to compel by mandamus the auditing for payment of certain accounts for expenses incurred in traveling, as it is averred, upon the business of the State.
The case is at issue upon demurrers to the alternative writ of both a general and a special sort. From the legal viewpoint the case may be considered and dealt with, both as to the statement of facts and the discussion of the law, upon the principles presented by the first and third counts.
Omitting…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lamar Township v. City of LamarSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- State ex rel. Bybee v. HackmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1918
- State ex rel. Lamkin v. HackmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1918
- State ex rel. Kelly v. HackmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1918
3Cited by4 opinions
- Terrell v. KingTexas Supreme Court · 1929
- State Ex Inf. Atty. Gen. v. HedrickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1922
- State Ex Rel. Banister v. CantleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- State Ex Rel. Zevely v. HackmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1923