Cnty. of Boone v. Corlew

• Decision Date: 30 April 1831
• Citation: 3 Mo. 12
• Parties: COUNTY OF BOONE v. CORLEW.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

3 Mo. 12

COUNTY OF BOONE

v.CORLEW.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1831.

ERROR FROM THE BOONE CIRCUIT COURT.

WASH, J.

An application was made by Corlew to the County Court of Boone, to allow an account against the county of Boone for the sum of seven dollars, money improperly paid by him as constable into the county treasury, &c. The County Court overruled the motion. Corlew excepted to the opinion of the court, and spread the evidence on the record. An appeal was also prayed for and granted to the Circuit Court. At the February term of the Boone Circuit Court, 1830, as appears from the record, the cause came on to be argued in that court, both parties appearing and consenting thereto, when the Circuit Court adjudged and directed the County Court to allow the account, as the money was improperly paid by Corlew into the county treasury, under a statute that was and is unconstitutional. And that said Corlew has a legal right properly recoverable in an action for money, had and received to his use from said county: and that his costs in both courts be also allowed and paid by said County Court. To reverse this decision of the Circuit Court, the plaintiffs have come into this court. Four errors have been assigned. The three first amount to nothing more than a general assignment, except that in the third, the mandamus is pointed out as the proper remedy. The fourth error assigned is, that it appears from the said record and proceeding, that an appeal from said County Court to the said Circuit Court, would not, by the law of the land, lie.

The points made and relied on by the Attorney General in behalf of the county, are, first, that the consent of the County Court only extended to asking the opinion of the Circuit Court as to matters of law, and did not authorize it to make any order. Second. That the evidence was insufficient to justify the County Court in allowing the account. Third. That there was no sufficient appeal, there being no affidavit. Fourth. That the law does not authorize an appeal in this case. Without regard to the order in which the points have been presented, we will first consider the third and fourth points. The eighth section of the fifth article of our State Constitution provides, that the Circuit Court shall exercise a superintending control over such inferior tribunals as the General Assembly may establish. The County Court is one of the inferior tribunals established by the Legislature; and by the fourth section of “An act to establish Courts of Justice, and to prescribe their powers and duties,” approved January 7th, 1825, Rev. Code, p. 269, it is expressly provided that the Circuit Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction from the judgments and orders of the said inferior tribunals, in all cases not expressly prohibited by law, and shall possess a superintending control over them. It is not pretended that there exists any law prohibiting the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in this case. The County Cou...