Legal Opinion

Hicks v. Davis

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided March 10, 1917No. 19,943PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Original proceeding in mandamus.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dawson, J.:

This is a motion to allow damages under section 723 of the civil code against W. E. Davis, personally, because judgment went against him in his official capacity as state auditor (Hicks v. Davis, 97 Kan. 312, 154 Pac. 1030; 97 *5Kan. 662, 156 Pac. 774) in an application for a writ of mandamus to require him to audit a claim and to issue a warrant therefor in favor of plaintiff for a sum of money, allowed to him by the legislature.

It is contended that the defendant auditor’s duty was purely ministerial. But the functions of a state auditor are…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hicks v. DavisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
  2. Garden City, Gulf & Northern Railroad v. NationSupreme Court of Kansas · 1910
  3. Hicks v. DavisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
  4. State ex rel. Benest v. McNeillSupreme Court of Kansas · 1910

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Murphy v. City of TopekaCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1981
  2. Barten v. Turkey Creek Watershed Joint District No. 32Supreme Court of Kansas · 1968
  3. Commercial Union Insurance v. City of WichitaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1975
  4. Hendrix Ex Rel. Smith v. City of TopekaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1982
  5. Kittredge v. BoydSupreme Court of Kansas · 1933

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API