IN RE. PETITION OF THE STATE EX REL. MOSES GUYTON AS CLERK, PETITIONER,
v.
WILLIAM V. KNOTT, STATE TREASURER, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves a mandamus proceeding to compel the State Treasurer to transmit funds for jury and witness payments. The court denied the writ because the requisition, though endorsed by the Comptroller, was not countersigned by the Governor as required by law.
No, the State Treasurer's duty to transmit funds arises only when the requisition, endorsed by the Comptroller, has also been countersigned by the Governor. Without this countersignature, the Treasurer is not obligated to transmit the funds.
“We are still satisfied with the correctness of the holdings in that case.”
Reiterates the court's prior ruling on the constitutionality of the relevant law.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relator, a Clerk of the Circuit Court, sought a writ of mandamus against the State Treasurer to compel the transmission of funds for jury and witn…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandamus Proceeding cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, C. J.
Recently, at the present term, in the case of State ex rel. Guyton, Clerk, v. A. C. Croom, Comptroller, a mandamus proceeding originating in this court, we have held that Chapter 4121, laws of 1893, making provision for the transmission of funds by the State Treasurer to the Clerks of the Circuit Courts for the payment of jurors and witnesses before grand juries, upon the requisition of such clerks to the Comptroller, was constitutional, and that when such requisitions were presented to the Comptroller it was his duty to endorse the same for such sum as in his judgment was necessary for the object to be met, and, in effect, that it was the duty of the Governor, under the provisions of said Chapter 4121, read in connection with sections six and twenty-four of Article Four of the constitution, to countersign such requisitions with the Comptroller, and that when so signed by the Comptroller and Governor, it was the duty of the State Treasurer to transmit the amount authorized by the Comptroller to the clerk making the requisition. We are still satisfied with the correctness of the holdings in that case. The relator in that case now applies for a writ of mandamus against the State Treasurer to compel him to transmit the amount endorsed on the requisition by the Comptroller in response to the alternative writ in the former case, but in his petition for the writ he fails to show that such endorsement of such requisition by the Comptroller has been countersigned by the Governor. As was held in the former case, it becomes the duty of the Treasurer to transmit the money only when such requisition endorsed by the Comptroller has been countersigned by the Governor, and in the absence of a showing that such countersigning has been had here, the application for the alternative writ must be denied, and it is so ordered at the cost of relator. Carter. Hocker, Shackleford and Cockrell, JJ., concur. Whitfield, J., being disqualified, took no part in the decision of the case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McSween v. State Live Stock Sanitary Bd. of Fla., 97 Fla. 750 (Fla. 1929)…he Governor in such manner as shall be prescribed by law. ’ ’ The same contention was involved and disposed of by this court adversely to this contention of complainants in State v. Croom, 48 Fla. 176, 37 So. R. 302 and reaffirmed in State v. Knott, 48 Fla. 188, 37 So. R. 307. The opinion and conclusion of the court in State v. Croom, supra are conclusive of the question under consideration and we have no reason to depart from that decision. Complainants further charge in their bill that the State Live St…