State ex rel. Sherman v. Benson

189 P. 1000, 111 Wash. 124, 1920 Wash. LEXIS 599
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedMay 8, 1920
DocketNo. 15729
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 189 P. 1000 (State ex rel. Sherman v. Benson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington 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. Sherman v. Benson, 189 P. 1000, 111 Wash. 124, 1920 Wash. LEXIS 599 (Wash. 1920).

Opinion

Holcomb, C. J.

The relator seeks a writ of mandate to compel the commissioner of agriculture to pay into the state treasury the balance of funds in his possession arising from entrance fees, concessions, advertising space, and other income of the state fair of Washington for the years 1918 and 1919.

In 1893, the legislature created the state fair of Washington and declared its object and purpose to be to promote and further the advancement of all agricultural, stock raising, horticultural, mining, mechanical and industrial pursuits in this state; and provided for exhibitions thereof at North Yakima (now Yakima) for at least six days annually, after the passage of the act. Laws of 1893, ch. 134, page 445. The act further provided that the state fair should be under the management and control of five commissioners known as the state fair commission, to be appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the senate, and to hold office for four years from the date of their appointment, and. until their successors were appointed and qualified. Rem. & Bal. Code, § 3003. It also provided for the organization of the commission within fifteen days after their appointment, and for meetings of the commission at specified times and places, and the giving of bond by each of the commissioners conditioned for the faithful performance of their duties. Rem. & Bal. Code, § 3004. It further provided that the state fair commission should take and have full control and management of the state fair as a state institution and the care of its property, and intrusted the commission with the entire direction of [126]*126its business and financial affairs, etc.; and that the commission should have power to charge entrance fees,, gate money, lease stalls, stands, restaurant sites, give prizes and premiums, and do all things which by the commission might be considered proper to conduct in connection with a state fair not otherwise prohibited by law. Rem. & Bal. Code, § 3005. Section 3008 provided that, on the last Monday of October of each year, the state fair commission should prepare and transmit to the governor of the state a full financial statement, signed by the president and treasurer and attested by the secretary, of all funds received and disbursed, and also a report signed by the president and secretary of all the assets and liabilities of the state fair, a full and detailed account of all its transactions, statistics and information gained; and required the secretary to constantly collect all kinds of information calculated to instruct the agricultural and industrial classes, and to have the same embodied in such report. Section 3009 provided that all vouchers for the expenditures of money under the provisions of the act should be signed by the president and at least two other members of the state fair commission and attested by the secretary; and that the state auditor should, upon-presentation of such vouchers, draw his warrant upon the state treasurer for the payment of the same, and the state treasurer should pay such warrant out of any money on hand appropriated for the purposes in the act set forth; and that all moneys remaining in the hands of the treasurer of the commission on the last Monday of October of each year should be paid in to the state treasurer to the credit of the state fair fund, to be subsequently drawn out as thereinbefore provided. Section 3011 provided that no expenditure should be made or indebtedness contracted by the commissioners in excess of the amount therein appro[127]*127printed, and that any indebtedness so contracted should be void. In 1913, by chapter 60, page 196, Laws of 1913, the legislature created the department of agriculture, and provided, in § 6 thereof, that the commissioner (of agriculture) should have power and it should be his duty, among other things:

“(5) To exercise all the powers and perform all the duties now vested in and required'to be performed by the state fair commission.” Rem. Code, § 3000-6.

By § 14 of that act, all acts and parts of acts incorporated in the schedule contained in this section, and all acts and parts of acts in conflict with the provisions thereof, were repealed; and the schedule included, with reference to the state fair legislation, §§ 3003 and 3004, Rem. & Bal. Code, being the sections giving the management and control of the state fair to the five commissioners known as the state fair commission, and providing for their organization, meetings, giving of bonds, etc.

It is shown by the petition that, at the time of the opening of the 1919 state fair, respondent Benson, as commissioner of agriculture, had in his control and custody approximately $13,000 remaining from the conduct of the fair for the year 1918, and that he received from the income of the 1919 fair approximately $40,000; that he expended approximately $38,000 of this amount, and there remains a balance of approximately $16,000 in his possession at this time. It is the contention of the respondent that he is authorized to expend all income of the state fair for the payment of expenses incurred in its operation, in addition to the amount appropriated by the legislature. The relator, supported by the Attorney General, contends that these collections must be deposited in the state treasury to be paid out under proper appropriation acts.

[128]*128Relator contends that the only language in the act of 1893 creating the state fair which could be construed as permitting the expenditure by the state fair commission of the collections of the operation of the fair, without the same having been paid into- the treasury and appropriated by the legislature, are the authorizations of § 3005 for the commission to “do all things which by said commission may be considered proper to conduct in connection with a state fair not otherwise prohibited by law,” and §3009, providing “that all moneys remaining in the hands of the treasurer of the commission on the last Monday of October of each year shall be paid in to the state treasurer to the credit of the state fair fund, to be subsequently drawn out, if required, as hereinbefore provided. . . .”

It is conceded that, since Rem. & Bal. Code, § 3002, permits the holding of the fair as late as the second Monday of October, and the last Monday of October being specified in Rem. & Bal. Code, § 3009, for remitting all moneys remaining in the hands of the treasurer of the commission to the state treasurer to be credited to the state fair fund, to be drawn out as in the original act prescribed, might support that contention but for the fact that, at the time of the enactment of that section, there was not in force Rem. Code, § 5029, requiring each state officer, or other person authorized by law to collect or receive moneys belonging to the state or to any department or institution thereof, to transmit the same -to the treasurer of the state each day; and that, further, by the provisions of the act creating the department of agriculture (Rem. Code, § 3000-12), all moneys collected as fees or otherwise by the department of agriculture shall be paid into the state general fund.

The Attorney General, upon the request of the Honorable J. H. Perkins, commissioner of agriculture, [129]*129in July, 1913, for an opinion as to the operation of the state fair fund, advised the commissioner of agriculture that § 12 of chapter 60, Laws of 1913, p. 200, required all moneys collected by the commissioner to be paid into the state general fund, and that the use of the state fair receipts as a revolving fund was not authorized by law.

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

Related

Strenge v. Clarke
569 P.2d 60 (Washington Supreme Court, 1977)
Herrett Trucking Co. v. Washington Public Service Commission
364 P.2d 505 (Washington Supreme Court, 1961)
Longview Co. v. Lynn
108 P.2d 365 (Washington Supreme Court, 1940)
State Ex Rel. Dept. P.S. v. Nor. Pac. R. Co.
94 P.2d 502 (Washington Supreme Court, 1939)
Pryor v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
85 P.2d 1045 (Washington Supreme Court, 1938)
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Henneford
81 P.2d 786 (Washington Supreme Court, 1938)
Long v. Thompson
31 P.2d 908 (Washington Supreme Court, 1934)
In Re West Barton Street Sewer
1 P.2d 858 (Washington Supreme Court, 1931)
State Ex Rel. Davis v. Clausen
295 P. 751 (Washington Supreme Court, 1931)
Whiting v. City of Seattle
258 P. 824 (Washington Supreme Court, 1927)
City of New Albany v. Lemon
149 N.E. 350 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1925)
State ex rel. Shuff v. Clausen
229 P. 5 (Washington Supreme Court, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 P. 1000, 111 Wash. 124, 1920 Wash. LEXIS 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-sherman-v-benson-wash-1920.