State ex rel. Beebe v. McMillan

36 Nev. 383
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1913
DocketNo. 2085
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 36 Nev. 383 (State ex rel. Beebe v. McMillan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Beebe v. McMillan, 36 Nev. 383 (Neb. 1913).

Opinion

By the Court,

Talbot, C. J.:

Relator applies for a writ of mandate commanding the state treasurer to pay out of the "state insurance fund” a claim which has not been approved by the board of examiners. It is agreed that the case be considered as standing upon demurrer to the petition, and the question argued, and which the court is requested to determine, is whether the state treasurer may properly pay claims against this fund without the approval of the board of examiners and the warrant of the state controller. The respondent has taken the safer course by refusing to pay before an adjudication of the statute is obtained.

The legislature at its last session passed an act entitled: "An act relating to the compensation of injured workmen in the industries of this state and the compensation to their dependents where such injuries result in death, creating an industrial insurance commission, providing for the creation and disbursement of funds for the compensation and care of workmen injured in the course of employment, and defining and regulating the liability of employers to their employees; and repealing all acts and parts of acts in conflict with this act. ” (Stats. 1913, c. 111.) It provides for the "Nevada Industrial Commission,” to be composed of the governor, state mining inspector, attorney-general, and two others to be selected by the three named, that a majority of these shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of the business of the commission, and for a state insurance fund, to be derived from premiums to be paid by employers, based on percentages of monthly payrolls, in cases where notice of rejection of the terms of the act is not- served by the employer or employee.

[385]*385Section 24 provides that all premiums designated in the act shall be paid to the state treasurer, and shall constitute the state insurance fund for the benefit of employees and their dependents.

Section 40 provides that the state shall not be liable for the payment of any compensation under the. act except from the state insurance fund, to be derived from the payment of these premiums, and section 41 that the expenses of administration shall not exceed ten per cent of the amount of the premiums paid into this fund.

Differently from the provisions generally existing in other states, our constitution provides that the governor, secretary of state and attorney-general shall "constitute a board of examiners with power to examine all claims against the state, except salaries or compensation of officers fixed by law.” (Art. 5, sec. 21.) The organic act also provides, at section 19, article 4, that no money shall be drawn from the state treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law, and at section 22, article 5, that the secretary of state, state treasurer, and state controller shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law.

Section 4459 of the Revised Laws provides that: "All claims against the state for service or advances, for payment of which an appropriation has been made by law, and which have been by law authorized, but of which the amount has not been liquidated and fixed, must be presented to the board of examiners in the form of an account or petition, and in such manner as said board shall prescribe by their rules. * * * The controller shall not allow or draw his warrant for any claim of the class described in this section, which shall not have been approved by said board, or a greater amount than allowed by said board, except when said claim shall not have been acted upon by said board within thirty days prior to its presentation.”

Section 4157 provides: "He shall keep and state all accounts between the State of Nevada and the United States, or any state or territory, or any individual, [386]*386corporation, or public officer of this state, indebted to the state, or intrusted with the collection, disbursement, or management of any moneys, funds or interests, arising therefrom, belonging to the state, of every character and description whatsoever, where the same are derivable from or payable into the state treasury. He shall examine and settle the accounts of all county treasurers, and other collectors and receivers of all state revenue, taxes, tolls, and incomes, levied or collected by any act of the legislature and payable into the state treasury, and certify the amount or balance to the state treasurer. He shall keep fair, clear, distinct, and separate accounts of all the revenues and incomes of the state, and also, all the expenditures, disbursements, and investments thereof, showing the particulars of every expenditure, disbursement, and investment.”

Section 4158 enacts: "He shall audit all claims against the state, for the payment of which an appropriation has been made, but of which the amount has not been definitely fixed by law, and which shall have been examined and passed upon by the board of examiners, or which shall have been presented to said board, and not examined and passed upon by them within thirty days from their presentation; and he shall allow of said last-mentioned claims (not passed upon by the board of examiners within said thirty days after presentation), the whole, or such portion thereof as he shall deem just and legal, and of claims examined and passed upon by the board of examiners, such an amount as he shall decree just and legal, not exceeding the amount allowed by said board. And no claim for services rendered, or advances made to the state or any officer thereof, shall be audited or allowed unless such services or advancement shall have been specially authorized by law, and an appropriation made for its payment. For the purpose of satisfying' himself of the justness and legality of any claim, he shall be allowed to examine witnesses under oath and to receive and consider documentary evidence in addition to that furnished him by the board of examiners. He shall draw warrants on the treasurer for such [387]*387amounts as he shall allow of claims of the character above described, and also for all claims of which the amount has been definitely fixed by law, and for the payment of which an appropriation shall have been made. ”

Section 4159 is as follows: "He shall audit all warrants upon the treasurer for money, and each warrant shall express, in the body thereof, the particular fund out of which the same is to be paid, and no warrant shall be drawn upon the treasury except there be an unexhausted specific appropriation, by law, to meet the same. The controller shall keep an account of all warrants by him drawn on the treasury, and a separate account under the head of each specific appropriation, in such form and manner as at all times to show the unexpended balance of each appropriation.”

Is the state insurance fund, as so derived from premiums, identical with the state treasury, and are the demands against it claims against the state within the meaning of the constitutional and statutory provisions regarding approval by the. board of examiners and the drawing of warrants by the state controller? If action by this board and official were required, much of the detail work performed by the special officers and clerical force of the industrial commission would have to be delayed until it could be considered by the board, which meets bimonthly, and has many other duties to perform, and the further question would arise whether the payment of such claims would have to be deferred until an appropriation, the amount of which would not be easy to determine, could be made by the legislature.

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

Related

Kansas Building Industry Workers Compensation Fund v. State
359 P.3d 33 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2015)
No.
Colorado Attorney General Reports, 1977
Moran v. State Ex Rel. Derryberry
1975 OK 69 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1975)
State Ex Rel. Williams v. Musgrave
370 P.2d 778 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1962)
Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co.
45 N.W.2d 640 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1951)
State v. Carson Valley Bank
47 P.2d 384 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1935)
State v. Banks
47 P.2d 384 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 Nev. 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-beebe-v-mcmillan-nev-1913.