Court Opinion

ID: 9682724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:15:29.549033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:37.310290
License: Public Domain

HUGHES, Justice.
Loyd Lovell in his capacity as Sheriff of Houston County and Kenneth Davis, a minor, acting through his next friend, M. O. Davis, appellants, brought this suit against J. A. Bynum in his official capacity as County Auditor of Houston County.
Appellants alleged that on April 22, 1957, the Commissioners’ Court of Houston County regularly passed the following motion:
“Motion was made by O. H. McClain seconded by Charlie Allen that the Budget of 1957 be amended to include $500.00 for a night Dispatcher for the Sheriff’s office, same being an unforeseen emergency arising due to reduction of the City Police Force, and the Sheriff is authorized to hire a night dispatcher at a salary of $62.50 per month provided the City of Crockett matches same for salary. Motion carried by three Yea’s and two No’s.”
They further alleged:
“Pursuant to such Motion, the proper officials of the City of Crockett, Texas, together with relator Loyd Lovell, employed Kenneth Davis, to serve as Night Dispatcher and such employee has now served longer than one month; that a proper warrant on the salary account of Houston County, Texas, properly signed by the County Judge and three of the Commissioners, in the amount of $62.50 was presented to respondent for his approval, but respondent refused to approve such warrant in the amount herein stated and has stated that he will not in the future approve such warrants.”
Full compliance by the City of Crockett and the existence of three similar vouchers or warrants payable to Kenneth Davis was alleged.
Appellants prayed for the following relief :
“ * * * that mandamus issue requiring respondent to approve the four vouchers that have been issued and made payable to the relator Kenneth Davis and that he further be required to approve any additional vouchers that said Kenneth Davis might be entitled to receive as a result of his employment as Night Dispatcher in the Sheriff’s Office.”
Appellee answered by challenging the presence of any justiciable interest in the Sheriff in this controversy authorizing him to maintain this suit and by pleading these defensive matters: (a) the April 22, 1957, amendment to the budget was invalid in that no funds were available or made available for the purpose of the amendment and it could not be reasonably calculated that such funds would become available therefor (b) Kenneth Davis has not furnished the county with information required by Federal law regarding withholding of income taxes (c) ¡M. O. Davis, father of Kenneth Davis, has “waived” or released the claim sued upon it being alleged that M. O. Davis is the real owner of the claim since Kenneth Davis is an unemancipated minor.
Appellee moved for a summary judgment upon the pleadings1 on the ground that *22they disclosed no genuine issue as to any material fact. Appellants opposed the motion on the ground that such issues were present.
Appellee’s motion for summary judgment was granted and judgment was rendered that appellants take nothing by their suit.
Without determining the validity of the defenses urged-by appellee it is our opinion that the Trial Court correctly rendered judgment denying appellants the only relief sought by them, towit, the issuance of a writ of mandamus against appellee, the County Auditor.
 In Manion v. Lockhart, 131 Tex. 175, 114 S.W.2d 216, 219 the Court stated the rule applicable in mandamus cases as follows:
“The rule is well established that mandamus does not lie where relator has another plain, effective, and adequate remedy to obtain the relief to which he may be entitled. Ordinarily a writ of mandamus must be the last resort, and it will be refused if there be another remedy which is effective and complete.”
The claim which appellants seek payment of is a claim against Houston County.
Before suit may be maintained against a county for a claim against it the claim must have been presented to the Commissioners’ Court for allowance or rejection except in counties having a County Auditor in which case presentment to and' rejection by the County Auditor is a sufficient predicate for a suit against the county. Art. 1573, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St.; Anderson v. Ashe, 99 Tex. 447, 90 S.W. 872.
Appellee having refused to approve the claim of -Kenneth Davis his remedy was to bring suit against Houston County. Wyatt Metal & Boiler Works v. Lipscomb, Tex.Civ.App., 87 S.W.2d 331, 333, Texarkana Court of Civil Appeals, writ refused. This case is directly in point. It was an action to compel, by mandamus, the County-Auditor to approve a claim previously rejected by him. We quote from that opinion:
“In the light of the above authorities, it is clear that the plaintiff in error had a right to file suit to establish its claim against the county when the auditor refused to approve its claim, but the courts will not compel by mandamus an auditor to approve such a claim. * * The relief sought in this proceeding is a mandamus only, and we are not here concerned nor called upon to determine the rights of plaintiff in error to any other relief. To grant the mandamus in this suit would have the effect of forcing Fannin county to pay a claim which had not been approved by any one with power to allow the same, since such claim was rejected by the county auditor and the commissioners’ court had no jurisdiction to allow it, and their attempted approval was a nullity.”
The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.

. Tbe pleadings of all parties were sworn pleadings.