Opinion

Shattuck v. Kincaid

  • 31 Or. 379
  • 49 P. 758
  • 1897 Ore. LEXIS 53
Court
Oregon Supreme Court
Filed
Aug 9, 1897
Status
Published
Author
Bean
On the bench
Bean, Wolveeton
Cited by
36 cases

an appropriation is a legislative act earmarking funds for a specific purpose and authorizing expenditure for that purpose

How later courts described this case

  • an appropriation is a legislative act earmarking funds for a specific purpose and authorizing expenditure for that purpose

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Mr. Justice Bean.

I concur in the view expressed in the prevailing opinion that under the statute the secretary is not authorized to audit a claim without issuing his warrant to the claimant as evidence thereof. The two acts seem to be made by the statute concurrent. But I am not entirely satisfied with the conclusion that he can be compelled by mandamus to audit a claim and issue a warrant thereon, in the absence of an appropriation by the legislature with which to pay the warrant when issued; but, as my associates are agreed upon the question, I do not feel authorized to dissent upon the doubt I entertain.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.