State ex rel. Walker v. Walker
Supreme Court of Missouri
Mandamus. (1) It was not tlie intention of the legislature to interfere with relator’s contract by the repealing act of-March 28, 1885. This is shown by the passage of the act of the: same date as the above (Laws of 1885, p. 203), which expressly recognizes relator’s contract as binding- and obligatory, and directed that certain vouchers be-turned over to him for collection under said contract.
Read the full summary
Mandamus. (1) It was not tlie intention of the legislature to interfere with relator’s contract by the repealing act of-March 28, 1885. This is shown by the passage of the act of the: same date as the above (Laws of 1885, p. 203), which expressly recognizes relator’s contract as binding- and obligatory, and directed that certain vouchers be-turned over to him for collection under said contract. (2) The intent to give a retrospective operation to a law must be clearly expressed in order that it may receive such a construction. State ex rel., etc., r>. Greer, 78 Mo. 188 ; Stale v. Grant, 79 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.
For the purpose of pleading, the .petition, by consent, is treated as an alternative writ of mandamus, and the respondent has filed a return thereto. The act of March 19, 1881 (Acts of 1881, p. 163), gave the fund commissioners authority to employ an agent' to prosecute to final settlement before congress and the departments, the claims of the state against the United States (1) for reimbursement of moneys due the state on' account of expenditures and liability incurred in equipping, etc.,, the militia in the late war; (2) all other claims audited by the commission created by the act of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hunt v. Rousmanier's AdministratorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- Davis v. GraySupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Hall v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Walker v. DenisonIllinois Supreme Court · 1877
- Barr v. SchroederCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Beebe v. the Columbia Axle Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1938
- Glover v. HendersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Green v. ColeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- State Ex Rel. West v. McCaffertySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Gibbs v. Bardahl Oil CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1960
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.