State ex rel. Nolen v. Hackmann
Supreme Court of Missouri
Mandamus. (1) Respondent’s return admitting, as it does, that relator was duly appointed stenographer for the Department of Land Reclamation, pursuant to law and by the officer authorized by law to make the appointment; admitting that this officer duly made out and approved vouchers for her salary for the time of her employment, to-wit, from April 1, to September 14, 1917, and that on said last named date said vouchers were duly presented to respondent for allowance;…
Read the full summary
Mandamus. (1) Respondent’s return admitting, as it does, that relator was duly appointed stenographer for the Department of Land Reclamation, pursuant to law and by the officer authorized by law to make the appointment; admitting that this officer duly made out and approved vouchers for her salary for the time of her employment, to-wit, from April 1, to September 14, 1917, and that on said last named date said vouchers were duly presented to respondent for allowance; admitting that there was then and now is in the State Treasury, to the credit of the appropriation for the salary of the…
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
The facts concerning this proceeding a.re concisely and sufficiently stated in the brief of relatrix, from which we quote as follows:
“This is a mandamus proceeding, original in this court, begun by the filing, on April 9, 1918, of relatrix’s petition for an alternative writ of mandamus The alternative writ was awarded on April 27, 1918, returnable , May 27, 1918. On the same date, to-wit, April 27, 1918, the issuance and service of the alternative writ were waived and the petition taken as and for the atlernative writ by the Attorney-General, for the respondent. On *177June 22, 1918, respondent…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People ex rel. Throop v. LangdonMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- State ex rel. Suter v. WilderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- State ex rel. Daily v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- In re Appropriations for DeputiesNebraska Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by4 opinions
- Utah Construction Co. v. State Highway CommissionWyoming Supreme Court · 1933
- State Ex Rel. McDowell, Inc. v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1933
- Rissler & McMurry Co. v. Wyoming Highway DepartmentWyoming Supreme Court · 1978
- Rissler & McMurry Co. v. Wyoming Highway DepartmentWyoming Supreme Court · 1978