State ex rel. Sloan v. Warner
Wisconsin Supreme Court
An alternative ’writ of mandamus was awarded to the secretary of state upon petition of the relators. The petition stated substantially the same facts as were contained in the complaint in an action for the same cause brought by the relators against the state (51 Wis., 623), with the exception that it contained no averment that any “trespass funds ” remained in the state treasury.
Read the full summary
An alternative ’writ of mandamus was awarded to the secretary of state upon petition of the relators. The petition stated substantially the same facts as were contained in the complaint in an action for the same cause brought by the relators against the state (51 Wis., 623), with the exception that it contained no averment that any “trespass funds ” remained in the state treasury. The mandate of the alternative writ was, that the secretary audit and approve the account of the relators, and draw his warrant therefor on the state treasurer, payable out of the “ trespass fund ” in the treasury,…
1Opinion of the Court
The following opinion was filed September 27, 1881 :
Lvon, J.
In Sloan v. The State, 51 Wis., 623, it was held that the claim of the relators cannot be enforced by action against the state, but that they are entitled to be paid for their services out of the “trespass fund” in the state treasury, •and that mandamus will lie to compel the secretary of state to audit and allow their claim.
Obviously, the secretary cannot be required to audit and ■allow the claim unless there are moneys in the treasury belonging to that fund. Hence, the petition should aver that there are moneys in the treasury…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Pennock v. DialogueSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- People ex rel. Case v. CollinsNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- United States v. BoutwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- People v. . StephensNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Secretary v. McGarrahanSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. CunningamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- Laycock v. ParkerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
- Boody v. WatsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1886
- Knights v. Treasurer & Receiver GeneralMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- Eureka Pipe Line Co. v. RiggsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1914
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.