State ex rel. Carroll Cnty. v. Roberts
Decision Date | 31 May 1876 |
Citation | 62 Mo. 388 |
Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI TO USE OF CARROLL COUNTY, Respondent, v. JAMES W. ROBERTS, et al., Appellants. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court.
Hale & Eads, for Appellants.
I. There is no means of determining, by the settlements, whether the balance claimed is on account of cash collections, notes required to be taken for deferred payments or Carroll county railroad bonds, which he was authorized to take.Ray & Ray, for Respondent.
I. The settlement shows the amount in the sheriff's hands from that source, and it shows it to be in money.
II. That settlement is a record and imports absolute verity.
Action for breach of sheriff's bond. Breach assigned was the failure by the sheriff to pay to the county certain monies arising from the sale of swamp lands, sold by him in his official capacity. In support of the claim of the plaintiff, the “final settlement,” as it is termed, made by the sheriff with the county court, was used as evidence.
It has been claimed here on behalf of the plaintiff, that this settlement, being a record of the county court, imports absolute verity, speaks for itself, and is not open to explanation or contradiction by parol. With respect to this we think otherwise.
This point was passed upon in Marion Co. vs. Phillips (45 Mo., 75), where it was held that the judges of the county court, in cases of this sort, act merely as the fiscal agents of the county; that their action is not final, is not conclusive, is not, in short, res adjudicata, but is open to the correction of any mistakes which may occur in the course of the settlement thus made. And such settlements were regarded by the court, in that instance, as occupying substantially the same footing as do settlements between private individuals. In the case at bar, however, the testimony of the clerk and the deputy clerk was based for the most part on record entries, also being orders under which Roberts acted in making sale of the swamp lands of the county.
This testimony was received without objection, and showed that the settlement offered in evidence was a mere synopsis or abstract of the settlement really made; that Roberts filed no written statement of his account with the county; that the settlement as made was made from accounts in the possession of the county court, kept by their clerk; that Roberts was charged with the gross amount of each sale of swamp lands, including as well the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Northern Trust Company a Corporation v. First National Bank of Buffalo, a Corporation
... ... pp. 235, 236 ... Where ... state officers fail to perform their duties in requiring ... C ... 853; State v. Sooy, 39 N.J.L. 539; Com. ex rel ... Mechanicsburg v. Knettle, 182 Pa. 176, 38 A. 13; ... People, 104 Ill. 448; State use of Carroll County v ... Roberts, 62 Mo. 388; Burlington Justices ... ...
-
Berry v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company
... ... State v. Bailey, 57 Mo. 131; Music v ... Railroad, 57 Mo ... for another trial. Carroll v. Railroad, 17 S.W. 889 ... Edwin ... ...
-
Spohn v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company
... ... That these ... propositions correctly state the law, see Spohn v ... Railroad, 101 Mo. 456; ... ...
-
State ex rel. County of Buchanan v. Fulks
... ... State ex rel ... West v. Diemer, 255 Mo. 351; State to the use of ... Carroll County v. Roberts, 62 Mo. 388. (4) Sec. 1890, ... R.S. 1909 (Sec. 1318, R.S. 1919), is applicable ... ...