Case ID: ohio-st_36/html/0324-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "White, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State ex rel. George L. Riley v. John F. Oglevee, Auditor of State.
    1. Neither 'branch of the general assembly can alone appropriate money from the treasury; but where a fund is provided by law for the contingent expenses of either brandh, the disbursement of the fund for such, purposes is.subject to the control of such branch.
    2. Hence, where a sum is allowed by the house of representatives for cleaning the hall occupied by that body, after its adjournment, the party rendering the service in pursuance of the resolution is entitled to be paid therefor out of the contingent fund previously appropriated for the use of the house.
    
      Mandamus.
    The only facts necessary to be noticed in this case are the ■following: On the 16th of April, 1880, the house of representatives adopted the following resolution, viz.: “ Resolved, that the porters of the House, George Riley, James Lewis, John Downing and Samuel Sloan, be allowed twenty-five dollars •each for services in cleaning up the hall after the adjournment •of the house.”
    By the appropriation act passed by the general assembly on the day preceding the passage of this resolution, there was appropriated for “ contingent expenses of the two houses, five '.hundred dollars.”
    It is admitted that the relator performed the services required of him by the resolution of the house; and that the ■■speaker of the house has so certified to the auditor, and that the relator is entitled to the $25 specified in the resolution; but that the auditor refuses to issue, a warrant for the payment of said sum in accordance with the certificate and resolution, solely on the ground that a single branch of the general assembly has no power to provide for the payment of ■services such as are contemplated in said resolution. It is also admitted that, of the contingent fund so appropriated, there is unexpended more than sufficient to pay the claim of the relator.
    
      George B. OTcey and H. J. Booth, for relator.
    
      George K. Nash, attorney-general, for respondent.
   White, J.

Neither branch of the general assembly can .alone appropriate money from the treasury. The constitution provides that: “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, •except in pursuance of a specific appropriation made by law.” Art. 2, §22.

The specific appropriation in the present case was made by the appropriation act of April 15, 1880.’ (77 O. L. 215.) ‘That act appropriated $500 for the “ contingent expenses •of the two houses,” and it is conceded that of the fuud thus appropriated, there remains unexpended more than sufficient, to pay the demand of the relator.

Where a fund is provided by law for the contingent expenses of either branch of the general assembly, the disbursement; of the fund for such purposes is subject to the control of such, branch. The passage of the resolution now in question came within the discretion and authority thus vested in the house of representatives; and the relator, having performed the services required by the resolution, is entitled to be paid out of the fund appropriated for the payment of the contingent expenses of the house.

This case is not affected by section 29 of article 2 of the-constitution.

There is no question of the allowance of extra compensation for past services in the case; nor is the claim one, the subject-matter of which was not provided for by pre-existing law. The subject-matter of the claim was provided for in the appropriation act of April 15,1880, and by the resolution of the house of the succeeding day; and the services were performed after they were authorized.

Peremptory writ a/wa/rded.