Lund v. Dickinson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; Act 302 has appropriated the amount appellant claims, and it imposes on the Auditor the duty of issuing the warrant. 42 Ark. 233. Article 5, § 29, has no application to this fund. 94 Atl. 746; 61 Id. 253. 1. Act 302, §§ 7-9, etc., do not constitute an appropriation.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; Act 302 has appropriated the amount appellant claims, and it imposes on the Auditor the duty of issuing the warrant. 42 Ark. 233. Article 5, § 29, has no application to this fund. 94 Atl. 746; 61 Id. 253. 1. Act 302, §§ 7-9, etc., do not constitute an appropriation. Const., art. 5, § 29, article 16, § 12; Kirby’s Digest, §§ 3415, 3441, 3409. A specific appropriation must be made. 85 Ark. 171; 120 Id. 80. 2. An appropriation must be made every two years. 27 Ark. 129; 50 Neb. 88; 45 Cal. 149; Dickinson v. Clibourn, 125 Ark. 101.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
On May 12, 1916, A. M. Lund filed his petition in the circuit court, for mandamus against M. F. Dickinson, Auditor of State, to compel him to issue a warrant in his favor for services performed as assistant engineer in the Department of State Lands, Highways and Improvements. His petition alleges that on the 20th day of April, 1916, he was appointed as such assistant engineer and directed to make a survey of a proposed road in Pike county; that he made the survey in accordance with his instructions, and submitted a statement of his expenses to the Commissioner of State Lands, Highways and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dickinson v. ClibournSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
3Cited by3 opinions
- State Ex Rel. State Aeronautics Commission v. Board of Examiners of StateMontana Supreme Court · 1948
- Arkansas Game Fish Com. v. Page, Treas.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
- Clayton, State Treasurer v. City of Little RockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1947