Omaha daily bee., 1915-12-04
Nebraska
HALL MUST PAY
FIRE WARRANTS
Nebraska Supreme Court Rules
State Treasurer Has No Right
to Refuse to Do So.
FAwCETT AND ROSE ABSENT
CFrom a Staff Correspondent.) }

important OF tne OplnloIls udHuSu uV"h
by ,he supreme court today was that in
the mandamus suit brought by Fire
,C mmssiancr W. $ Ridgel to compel |
State Treasurer George Hall TO pay war
rants drawn for expenses of that depart |
ment
The controversy which also covered !
about the same conditions in the pure
food department resulted in much hard |,
fee ings between Hall and the heads OF |
departments affected by the ruling and
.-th-aatened at one time the closing down |
of the pure food, oil and fire commits /
sion departments, but the food and oil
department finally fixed upon the plan |
of paying expenses of the department
from fees collected and turning in the /
talance.
Can't Refuse Payment.
In an opinion written by Justice Barnes
and concurred in by all judges, but taw- !
cett and Rose. who did not sit In the
case, II is held that State Treasurer 1
George Hall has no authority to refuse |
payment Of warrants drawn in favor of
Fire Commissioner w. s. Ridgell for the /
expenses Of that department.
Treasurer Hall had refused to pay |
warrants contendlng that there had been !
no appropriation made by the legislature
for the payment of the expenses of the |
department and therefore he had no au-
thority to pay warrants from that de-
partment.
The court holds that the state treasurer |
cannot raise the question of the uncon-
stitutionality of the act, the insurance |
companies which pay the tax to maintain
the department being the parties to raise
that point.
Purpose of Act.
The court holds that the act creating |
that fund passed in 1909 was intended to
be a continuing appropriation for the
payment of salaries and expenses of the
SIRE department and the treasurer may be
required by mandamus to pay warrants
properly drawn on that fund.
Judges Sedgwick and Letton do not con-
cur in the entire opinion, but only in the
concluding section. The decision there
fore really hinged on this one section
which denies the right Of the treasurer to
raise the question of constitutionality and
is as follows:
BY the act in question DAVIS of 1900 the
ies,SlStIei sneS neid te tSe treasure under the
act should be applied by the deputy COM
missioner to the payment OF his saiary
and performing the duties thereof The
right of the legislature 10 estapnsh suSn
an office and provide the tuna ior 'ne
necessary expenses as this act does, is
The taxpayers, or parties upon. whom
the burden is cast, are not complalnlng'
The fund has been provided and the serv-
ices rendered. II the statute Is uncon.
stitutional, and If the taxpayers &c eouIa 10
not doing So. They made no oojection
to the act when the money was called
unconstitutionaD voluntarily provided
this fund.
fected cannot be heard to challenge the
constitutionality of an act of the legisla-
ture. We do not think that under the
circumstances it is the duty Of the GUS
tion of it to the purposes for which II
was provided in accordance win the
of the opinion that 1t is the duty OF the
respondent to countersign and pay the
warrant in question. The writ as prayed
for is awarded.
Custer Bank Case.
\. Neither the Custer National bank nor
JOAN e. Cavanee, who was formerly l.
county treasurer of Custer county can
be held now for interest on county funds
deposited in the bank during the treas
urer's term of office.
Cavanee was treasurer from 1906 to 1909
and deposited funds in the bank, collect
ing only on the amount the bank was
entitled to as a county depository. The
county sued for interest over this amount
in the sum of 1923 and lost the case in
district court and appealed.
Judgment is Affirmed.
In an opinion by Sudge Hamer the
Judgment of the Lancaster county dis
trlct court is affirmed in a case involving
The placing of advertising matter in a
Fr1na haIH hot |
is mo reasonable basis of classification
which will permit package to be de-
clared misbranded which contains one
form of printed slip and another package
not misbranded when 1t contains a like
printed slip of paper merely because its
words convey a different meaning. Such \
an artificial distinction cannot legally be
made"
Law of the state.
1T is the settled law of this state that
an order Of sale, a sale, and confirma-
tion of the sale, made after the death of
a party to a foreclosure suit, subsequent
to the decree, are impervious to collateral
attack" is the opinion of the supreme
court in a suit brought by the Omaha Ma
tional bank against Smith F. Ferguson,
executor. The high court reverses the
misses the case.
demanded for Trial.
Another Douglas county case re-
Nersed. in part. and remanded back for
trial involves the title to property pur-
chased by one party and the deed made
ia the name of another. the court holding
that Where one buys real estate for
which he pays the purchase price and for
|
Of another the person taking the title
will hold the property in trust for the
one who pays the purchase price"
The suit was one in equity to establish
T. resulting trust in and to certain real
estate alleged to have been purchased by
. ugust Doll deceased. and to which the
legal title had been placed in the name
c; his nephew Charles F. Doll.