Raney v. Stovall

I respectfully dissent from so much of the majority opinion as holds that the state treasurer may question a claim as being unconstitutional. The majority opinion holds that such authority is implied. My objection is two-fold: (1) The constitutional section relied on does not support the implication; and (2) the Constitution expressly provides that the duties of the treasurer shall be fixed by statute and have so been fixed.

The fallacy in the implication is that Section 230 of the Constitution, relied on, deals with a prohibition against the payment of money from the Treasury unless…