People ex rel. McDougall v. Bell

delivered the opinion of the Court.

*178 The first question which suggests itself to the consideration * of the Court on this appeal is, whether a [178] mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel an auditing officer to .correct a manifest error in his accounts, where said error has arisen from his erroneously pursuing a law, which was subsequently declared void ?

There appears to be no dispute as to the correctness of the items charged, and the only point raised is, whether such items were charged to the proper fund; and if not, whether the relator can resort to this remedy for relief:

The statutes of 1850, p. 64, § 13, provide as follows: “There shall be paid annually out of the General Fund, to the order of the Governor, a sum not exceeding five thousand dollars, to defray the contingent expenses of administering the Government of the State.” This fund is kept in a separate account by the Comptroller, and is denominated “The Governor’s Contingent Account.”

First, then, can the exercise of the functions of this writ of mandate be invoked in this case ?

We are of opinion that it can. It properly issues in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in…