Appeal from Superior Court, Maricopa County; James A. Walsh, Judge.
Proceeding by Ana Frohmiller, as State Auditor of the State of Arizona, against the Board of Regents of the University and State Colleges of Arizona, a body corporate, involving validity of claims presented to the plaintiff for approval. From the judgment, the plaintiff appeals.
Charles L. Strouss, of Phoenix, for appellant.
John L. Sullivan, Atty. Gen., and John W. Rood, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Byron McCormick and Calvin Webster, both of Tucson, of counsel), for appellee.
Stanford, Chief Justice. La Prade, J., concurs. Morgan, J., being disqualified, it was stipulated by counsel for both sides that the hearing should be had before La Prade, J., and Stanford, C. J.
Stanford, Chief Justice.
[64 Ariz. 363] Appellant, who was the plaintiff in the superior court of Maricopa County, will in this opinion be termed as such, and the appellee styled defendant.
Plaintiff, as auditor of the state of Arizona, had presented to her for approval certain claims by defendant. The claims were against funds of the University of Arizona, Arizona State College at Tempe and Arizona State College at Flagstaff.
Plaintiff's complaint alleged that "defendant, acting through its duly authorized agents and employees, contends that the expenditures evidenced by said claims, and each of them are for a public purpose, are properly and legally payable out of state funds, and has requested plaintiff to issue her warrant in payment of said claims.
"That plaintiff as State Auditor of the State of Arizona, denies that the expenditures evidenced by said claims, or any of them, are for a public purpose, denies that said expenditures are properly or legally payable out of monies of the State of Arizona, and has refused to issue her warrant in payment of said claims, or any of them."
The position of plaintiff is set forth in her proposition of law:
"It is the duty of the appellant as Auditor of the State of Arizona to examine each claim filed with her calling for the expenditure of public funds, and disapprove and refuse to allow any expenditures she believes is not for a public purpose, and the auditor, if she approves an expenditure which is not for a public purpose, is liable for the amount thereof plus a 20% penalty, even though she has acted in the utmost good faith."
Two classes of claims were presented by defendant. 1. Claims for dues for membership of the respective institutions herein mentioned in certain activities. 2. Claims for reimbursement for travel attending conventions of association meetings. The claims in class 1, plaintiff claims, are mostly for ...