Cnty. of Marion v. Phillips

• Decision Date: 31 October 1869
• Citation: 45 Mo. 75
• Parties: THE COUNTY OF MARION, Defendant in Error, v. WILLIAM B. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

45 Mo. 75

THE COUNTY OF MARION, Defendant in Error,

v.WILLIAM B. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1869.

Error to Sixth District Court.

Dryden, Lindley & Dryden, with Lipscomb & Anderson, for plaintiff in error.

I. The action of the court in the case at bar was judicial. (The State v. Cooper County, 17 Mo. 507; Sullivan County v. Burgess, 37 Mo. 300; Jones v. Brinker, 20 Mo. 87; State, use of, etc., v. Rowland, 23 Mo. 98.)

II. The judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction can be impeached for fraud only. (Sullivan County v. Burgess, supra,Jones v. Brinker, supra; State, use of, v. Rowland, supra;Oldham & Broaddus v. Tremble, 15 Mo. 225; Beebe v. Bank of New York, 1 Johns. 555; Stanton v. Edwards, 1 Ves. Jr. 134; Ash v. Rogle, 1 Vern. Ch. 367.)

Boulware, Redd & McCabe, for defendant in error.

The entry of June 13, 1865, was not a judgment in form or legal effect. (3 Blackst. Com. 395-8; Gen. Stat. 1865, ch. 171, § 1, and ch. 137, §§ 9, 11; Sparks v. Purdy et al., 11 Mo. 225; State v. Cooper County Court, 17 Mo. 510; Boggs v. Caldwell County, 28 Mo. 589; Hann. & St. Jo. R.R. v. Marion County, 36 Mo. 303.)

BLISS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant had been sheriff and tax collector of Marion county, and on the 13th of June, 1865, he, as such collector, settled with the County Court, and the settlement was entered upon its records in the usual manner. In making this settlement the credits contained the following item: “By amount delinquent list allowed by County Court at date, $14,362.22.” This amount was credited to him upon his account of collections for the county revenue, and it was afterwards discovered that the total amount of delinquencies upon the levy for county taxes was only $5,967.72, and that the balance for which he had been credited consisted of the delinquent list for the State revenue, which balance should have been and was also credited to him in his settlement with the State auditor. Thus the defendant received a double credit of over $8,000, once by the State correctly, and once by the county by mistake.

The county commenced proceedings in the Circuit Court in the nature of a bill in chancery to correct this mistake, and recovered a judgment for the amount improperly retained and interest, amounting to $11,326. The matter is brought to this court through the District Court by error, and the only defense made is that it is res adjudicata; that, as the County Court passed upon it judicially, its judgment is conclusive, and the county is without remedy.

The exact status of the County Court, in other than its probate jurisdiction, has not been very clearly defined. In matters of probate it is a regular court of probate, the successor, in that regard, of the ecclesiastical courts of England, and so far is a judicial body, and its proper acts in passing upon the rights and duties of parties are judicial acts. In some other matters its functions are also judicial. But many of its duties can not be so classed. The county judges are in most matters the agents and representatives of their respective counties. As a board, called the County Court, they audit claims against it, make appropriations, assess taxes, loan and distribute the school fund, take charge of its poor, direct the building and supervision of roads and bridges, erect and take charge of the public buildings, look after and settle with its financial agents, and, in general, transact the county business. Many of their acts, as in auditing claims and settling the accounts of treasurer and collector, have been sometimes called judicial, because it is incumbent on the court to decide--to adjudicate, as it were--upon the claim or account. But this decision is more like that of a party or agent than of an impartial tribunal with the parties before them. They decide very much as every private person or financial agent of a firm or corporation decides upon an account presented. They decide as all public auditors decide when claims or accounts are presented for adjustment, and if their action is judicial, then our auditor of public accounts is so far a judge, and holds a court of record; for, in auditing claims, his duties are precisely those of the County Court. This term has been applied to their action from the poverty of language, for the same reason that the word “court” has been used in so many different senses. If they had been called supervisors or commissioners, and their organization a board, as in many States, the application of this term to their action might have been less frequent. But though we sometimes so apply the term, we do not conform our action to that idea. If passing upon a claim against the county is judicial action, and its rejection a judgment against the claimant, he would be concluded by it. The matter would be res adjudicata; and yet suits are brought every day to recover claims rejected by the County Court. Their action is simply evidence that the county refuses to pay them, and is the occasion of, if not a necessary step to, the action, instead of a bar to it. I have thus spoken of the action of the court upon claims against the county, because it is clearly analogous to its action in settling with collectors, &c.

This settlement of accounts with collectors lacks one of the essential elements of ordinary judicial action, there being no parties litigant, no adverse interests to be adjusted, no one to be heard but the officer; and it also possesses one of those elements, inasmuch as it is to be made and the accounts adjusted according to law. But so are all settlements and...