Opinion ID: 1890890
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Authority of the State Treasurer to Refuse Payment.

Text: Sec. 14.42 (4), Stats., charges the state treasurer to Pay out of the [state]; treasury . . . such sums only as are authorized by law to be so paid, if there be appropriate funds therein to pay the same, . . . This same statutory language was before this court in State ex rel. Lathers v. Smith (1943), 242 Wis. 522, 8 N. W. (2d) 345 (herein after referred to as the second Lathers Case ). There the state treasurer, having the same surname as respondent, refused to honor an order of the state highway commission for payment of certain highway work. This court affirmed a judgment holding the treasurer liable for damages and costs to the contractor but stated (p. 525): There is no question in this case about the good faith of the appellant [state treasurer]. He desired to protect  himself from liability for the payment of funds from the state treasury which he claimed were not authorized by law. As a public officer, this was his sworn duty.  (Emphasis supplied.) Although the state treasurer has a duty not to sign a check drawn on the state treasury for a disbursement that is not authorized by law, said treasurer may be compelled to sign a check by writ of mandamus if a court of competent jurisdiction determines the disbursement represented by the check is for a lawful purpose. The treasurer does not then act in a quasi-judicial capacity, because if such a court holds the proposed disbursement to be for a lawful purpose, the duty of the treasurer to sign the proposed check is ministerial in character. The second Lathers Case, supra, at page 515. Thus the crucial question in the instant controversy is whether the instant check was for a purpose authorized by law.