Buchanan v. Balls County

• Decision Date: 04 June 1920
• Docket Number: No. 20816.,20816.
• Citation: 283 Mo. 10,222 S.W. 1002
• Parties: BUCHANAN v. BALLS COUNTY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

222 S.W. 1002

283 Mo. 10

BUCHANAN v. BALLS COUNTY.

No. 20816.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 4, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Rails County; W. T. Ragland, Judge.

Action by Estella Buchanan against the County of Rails. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

This is a suit on the part of Estella Buchanan against Rails County for certain expenses paid by her while she was treasurer of the defendant county. Plaintiff had judgment below, and the county duly appeals. Plaintiff alleged, in substance, that she was the duly elected, qualified, and acting treasurer of Rails county from the 1st day of January 1909, until the 1st day of January, 1917; that as such official she was by law required to keep an office at the county seat of said county, and to attend to the same during the usual business hours, there to receive and disburse the funds of the county, and that it was also her statutory duty to keep the books, records, and papers pertaining to her office; that during that time it was defendant's duty to provide her with a suitable office room, properly equipped, lighted, and maintained, but that it failed to do so; that as a result of such failure she was compelled to supply and did supply the office, and defray the expenses of lights and janitor service therefor, and pay therefor out of her own funds; that she had expended the sum of $720 in so doing; that that sum was the reasonable value thereof; and that payment of said sum had been demanded and refused.

By its answer defendant admitted plaintiff's official position, followed this admission with a general denial, and then averred, in substance, that during the period aforesaid it maintained a county courthouse for the use of the county officials at the county seat, wherein it supplied the things which plaintiff claimed to have supplied; but it appears from the answer that it was necessary, if plaintiff kept her office in the courthouse, that she should occupy one room jointly with the county clerk, unless she chose to occupy a room "on the second floor, which, as the evidence showed, was used by the grand jury and petit jury when court was in session. Defendant further averred that plaintiff maintained a separate office elsewhere than in the courthouse for her own business convenience; that during her term of office she made periodical settlements with the county court of Ralls county, and upon said settlements being made she was duly paid all that was due her, and all that she then demanded, and in consequence was estopped to claim more; that so much of her claim as accrued prior to five years next before the filing of her petition was barred by the statute of limitations; and that no contract in writing for said expenses was ever made by defendant. The reply was a general denial.

The evidence for plaintiff tended to show that she maintained a separate office in the central portion of New London, the county seat of Rails county; that rent, lights, and janitor service cost $7.50 per month, which was a reasonable charge; that the county clerk's office was too small for joint occupancy; that the only unoccupied room in the courthouse was the jury room; that a short time before her term expired she presented her demand to the county court and payment was refused. A demurrer to the evidence was overruled. Defendant's evidence tended to show that the county court offered to fit up the jury room for plaintiff's use when court was not in session; that some former treasurers had occupied the county clerk's office jointly with him, and that others, at their own request, had maintained offices elsewhere in New London by permission of the county court. Defendant also offered, but was not allowed, to prove that in the opinion of various witnesses plaintiff could have maintained her office in the county clerk's office in joint occupancy with him. No further evidence of any importance was offered by either party. Defendant's request for a peremptory instruction was refused. The court instructed the jury that plaintiff was entitled to recover the reasonable expenses paid by her for rent, light, and janitor service, at not exceeding the rates shown in the evidence, separately assessing the amount of each, for a period not longer than five years before the date of the filing of .the petition. Defendant asked an instruction, No. 2, to the effect that unless there was a written contract plaintiff could not recover; another, No. 3, to the effect that if "there was sufficient room, space, and conveniences in the courthouse for the plaintiff to have, keep, and maintain her office of county treasurer therein," including light, heat, and janitor service, and if such room was subject to plaintiff's use, but that plaintiff for reasons of her own kept her...