People ex rel. Grannis v. Roberts, 163 N.Y. 70 (1900)

Mandamus does not lie to compel a state comptroller to audit a claim in a specific manner, as the comptroller’s auditing function involves the exercise of judgment and discretion.

Summary

This case concerns a dispute over payments for canal work. The relators, Grannis and O’Connor, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the state comptroller to pay drafts in full for work performed. The comptroller argued the contract was fraudulent due to an inaccurate estimate of rock excavation by the state engineer, leading to an unbalanced bid. The court held that the comptroller possesses the authority to audit claims against the state and cannot be compelled by mandamus to make a specific determination, as auditing involves discretionary judgment.

Facts

Grannis and O’Connor entered into a contract to perform work on the Erie Canal. The State Engineer’s estimate for rock excavation was significantly lower (100 yards) than the actual amount (over 30,000 yards). The contractors bid $3 per yard for rock excavation. The Comptroller refused to fully pay the contractors’ drafts, arguing that the rock excavation was only worth $1 per yard. The Comptroller further contended that the contractors knew the actual amount of rock excavation before signing the contract. A referee found no collusion or fraud. The Appellate Division affirmed.

Procedural History

The relators sought a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court to compel the Comptroller to pay the drafts. The Comptroller opposed, alleging fraud. The case was referred to a referee who found no fraud. The Appellate Division affirmed the referee’s finding. The Comptroller appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the State Comptroller can be compelled by mandamus to audit a claim in a specific manner, given the Comptroller’s authority to audit claims against the state.

Holding

No, because the comptroller’s auditing function involves a judicial function requiring the exercise of judgment and discretion, and mandamus cannot substitute the court’s judgment for that of the comptroller.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reviewed the history of auditing authority in New York, noting that the Constitution requires an audit before state funds are disbursed. While the legislature appropriates funds, it is the responsibility of an auditing officer to examine and approve claims. The Court traced the evolution of auditing power, eventually settling with the Comptroller. The Court emphasized that the Comptroller’s role involves more than just a ministerial calculation; it requires the Comptroller to “hear, to examine, to pass upon, to settle and adjust.” The court cited People ex rel. Harris v. Commissioners, 149 N.Y. 26, stating, “That would substitute the judgment or discretion of the court issuing the writ for that of the person or persons against whom the writ was issued.” The court found no legislative intent to remove the Comptroller’s audit authority and vest it solely in the State Engineer. Therefore, because the Comptroller’s audit function requires the exercise of discretion, mandamus cannot compel a particular outcome.