State ex rel. Egbert v. Blumberg

Citations

• 46 Wash. 270
• 89 P. 708
• 1907 Wash. LEXIS 603

Syllabus

<p>Counties — Claims'—Presentation—Compensation of Fruit Inspector. Laws 1903, p. 246, providing that the commissioner of horticulture shall issue his certificate showing the number of days work performed by county fruit inspectors, who shall thereupon receive pay at ¡p4 per day from the county, does not obviate the necessity of presenting a claim therefor to the county commissioners for allowance before the auditor shall draw a warrant, as required by Bal. Code, § 393, in all cases except for cost and fee bills required by law to be approved by some other judicial tribunal or officer; since the exception applies only to courts, and the law of 1903, does not provide for a warrant by the auditor on the certificate of the commissioner of horticulture.</p> <p>Same — County Officers —• Appointment — Statutes — Constitutionality. Laws 1903, p. 246, creating the office of county fruit inspector, to he appointed by the county commissioners for a term of two years, violates the mandatory provisions of the Const., art. 1, § 29, requiring all county officers to be elected, and is void.</p> <p>Mandamus — Defenses—Validity of Statute — County Officers. A county auditor required to issue warrants for. the payment of county funds is authorized to inquire whether a law requiring such payment is valid, and to attach the same for invalidity in mandamus proceedings brought against him to compel issuance of a warrant.</p>