Nowell v. Harrington

89 A. 1098, 122 Md. 487, 1914 Md. LEXIS 77
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedJanuary 15, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 89 A. 1098 (Nowell v. Harrington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nowell v. Harrington, 89 A. 1098, 122 Md. 487, 1914 Md. LEXIS 77 (Md. 1914).

Opinion

*488 Boyd, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing the amended petition of the appellant for a mandamus against the appellee. The petition sets out Chapter 630 of the Acts of Assembly of 1912, the first section of which is as follows:

“Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, That the Treasurer of this State be and he is hereby authorized and directed, upon the warrant of the Comptroller, to pay to James II. Nowell the sum of one hundred and seventy-five .($175.00) dollars for injuries done to the local guard boat, the sloop ‘Maria,’ while on duty in the waters 'of Herring Bay, said boat having been damaged by ice while guarding the waters of said Herring Bay.”

It then states:

“That the Governor of Maryland, in approving the bill, endorsed on it as follows: ‘This Act is approved for the sum of one hundred and twenty-five dollars ($125.00), and is disapproved for the amount or sum of fifty dollars ($50.00)’.”

and alleges that section 17 of Article 2 of the Constitution does not authorize the Governor to approve part and disapprove the rest of an item of an appropriation, but that he is only authorized under that section to approve or disapprove the entire item under consideration. But while thát may be an interesting question, it was not passed on by the lower Court, and it is not necessary for us to do so.

Tt is admitted that the bill was not presented to the Governor until after the legislature adjourned, and no bill can become a law without the Governor’s approval, if submitted io him after such adjournment. Section 17 of Article 2 of the Constitution. Lankford v. County Commrs., 73 Md. 111. If, then, the Governor did not actually approve the bill as jmssod by the legislature, it is manifest that such bill never became a law, and hence no appropriation was made by it for the sum of $175. Yet the appellant is in Court admitting that he had received the $125.00 and asking that the Comptroller “may be required to pay to your petitioner the *489 additional sran of fifty dollars appropriated By said Act of tlie General Assembly.” A sufficient answer to tbe petition, might bare been that tbe Comptroller lias no power to pay any of tbe sran, as the bill required tlie Treasurer to pay it on the warrant of tbe Comptroller, which is tbe course usually pursued, but regardless of that, section 17 of Article 19 of Code of 1912 provides that, “Every warrant drawn by the Comptroller on the Treasurer for the disbursement of money, to he valid, shall express upon its face the purpose for which it is drawn, and the Act of the General Assembly by which the appropriation is made,” and section 32 of Article 3 of the Constitution provides that, “'No money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the State by any order or resolution, nor except in accordance with an appropriation by law; and every sucli law shall distinctly specify the sum appropriated and the object to which it shall be applied.”

It was said in Warfield v. Vandiver, 101 Md. 113, that, “There are three ways in which a bill may become a law— first, by being signed by tlie Governor; secondly, by being passed over bis veto; and thirdly, by bis failure to return the bill within six days after-receiving it, unless by adjournment the General Assembly prevents its return.” Section 17 of Article 2 of tlie Constitution is then quoted. Of course the Court was then speaking of hills which had been duly passed by the legislature. This bill did not become a law by being passed over tlie veto of the Governor, or by bis failure to, return it witliin six days (Sunday excepted), after receiving it, for, as we have seen, it was admittedly not received by him until after the adjournment of the legislature. The only remaining way bv which it could have become a law was by being signed by the Governor.

Was it, then, signed by him within the meaning of the Constitution, so as n> make it a valid appropriation for the amount named in it? Below the copy of the Act filed with the petition as shown in the printed record is the fol lowing:

A reduced far simile of the official indorsements upon the hill is given on the next page.

*490

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rants v. Vilsack
684 N.W.2d 193 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2004)
(1974)
63 Op. Att'y Gen. 313 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1974)
Opinion of the Justices
210 A.2d 852 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1965)
Robey v. Broersma
26 A.2d 820 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1942)
State ex rel. Finnegan v. Dammann
264 N.W. 622 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1936)
State Ex Rel. Hudson v. Carter
1933 OK 588 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1933)
Mills v. Porter
222 P. 428 (Montana Supreme Court, 1924)
Stong v. People ex rel. Curran
220 P. 999 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 A. 1098, 122 Md. 487, 1914 Md. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nowell-v-harrington-md-1914.