State ex rel. Million v. Allen
Supreme Court of Missouri
Mandamus. (1) Section 3246, Revised Statutes 1899, provides specifically that this item of fees for sheriffs “shall he allowed by the court having cognizance of the offense. ’ ’ This section makes the court the ‘ ‘ allowing” or “auditing” officer. In the present case, the lower court “allowed” the claim. There was nothing left for the Auditor but to audit the claim when it was submitted to him. He ought not to question the validity of the allowance.
Read the full summary
Mandamus. (1) Section 3246, Revised Statutes 1899, provides specifically that this item of fees for sheriffs “shall he allowed by the court having cognizance of the offense. ’ ’ This section makes the court the ‘ ‘ allowing” or “auditing” officer. In the present case, the lower court “allowed” the claim. There was nothing left for the Auditor but to audit the claim when it was submitted to him. He ought not to question the validity of the allowance. (2) The item of fees contended for is a legal claim, provided for by section 3246, Revised Statutes 1899. State ex rel. v. Clark, 170 Mo. 67;…
1Opinion of the Court
MARSHALL, J. —
This is an original proceeding by mandamus to compel the State Auditor to audit and allow against the State, a fee bill for forty-six dollars and twenty-five cents, costs in the case of State of Missouri v. R. W. Bevington, being one dollar and twenty-five cents a day, for thirty-seven days, while, it is alleged, the prisoner was in relator’s charge as sheriff of Atchison county, “undergoing examination preparatory to commitment."
The information upon which the alternative writ of mandamus was based, states the facts to be as follows :
On December 21, 1902, the prosecuting…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Thomas v. County of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- State ex rel. Dickmann v. ClarkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ex Parte HaynesCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1924
- State Ex Rel. Zevely v. HackmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1923