Redding v. Bell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the-Judicial District. Cited Isham y. Bennington Iron Co., 19 Yt. 249; Merlot v. Lawrence, 1 Blatchf. C. C. R. 612; Ham et al. v. State, 7 Blackf.315; U. S, v. Warner et al. 4 McLean, 468; Payne v. Comer et al. 3 Bibb, 181. Cited Bowen v. Lease, 5 Hill, 225; Taylor v. JDelany, 2 Caine’s Ca. 150; ease of Yates, 4 Johns. 358; Howard v. Thompson, 21 "Wend. 319; Article 4, § 23 State Constitution.
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. J. Heydeneeldt
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Act of 13th of April, 1854, amendatory of the general law Regulating the Office of State Comptroller, declares that “no warrant shall be drawn on the Treasury, except there be an unexhausted specific appropriation by law, to meet the same.”
It is urged by the appellant that as the Act of May 1st, 1854, to create the office of State Printer, requires the Comptroller to draw his warrants on the Treasurer for such sums as may be due the State Printer, it takes the case out of the provision of the general law; that it is in effect a *334[334]…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Menefee, State Treas. v. AskewSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- State ex rel. Henderson v. BurdickWyoming Supreme Court · 1893
- Ingram v. ColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Crane v. FrohmillerArizona Supreme Court · 1935
- People ex rel. Attorney-General v. ReisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.