Compton v. Gilder
| Citation | 58 So. 271,176 Ala. 309 |
| Parties | COMPTON ET AL. v. GILDER, COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION. |
| Decision Date | 04 April 1912 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Marengo County; Edward J. Gilder Judge.
Bill by Benjamin F. Gilder, Superintendent of Education, against Samuel W. Compton and his bondsmen, for an accounting. From a decree overruling demurrers to the bill, respondents appeal. Affirmed.
The bill is filed in the official capacity of the complainant and alleges that he was successor in office of the respondent as county superintendent of education in Marengo county. It alleges that Compton was duly elected superintendent of education for Marengo county at the November election, 1904 and executed a bond as required by law, a copy of which is attached, under which bond he continued to act until January 22, 1908, and on that day filed in the office of judge of probate a new and additional bond, and continued to act under that bond, which was executed under direction of the state superintendent of education. It is further alleged that by section 1703 of the Code of 1907 the term of office of said Compton was extended to the 1st day of October, 1909, and on the 21st day of November, 1908, the said Compton filed another official bond, which is also set out as an exhibit. It is further alleged that a special tax was levied for public school purposes in Marengo county upon the real and personal property in said county for the scholastic years of 1906-07, 1907-08, and 1908-09, and that the same was collected by the tax collector, and paid over to said Compton as said superintendent, as follows: For scholastic year ending September 30, 1907, $5,553.94; for year ending September 30, 1908, $6,235.10; and for the year ending September 30, 1909, $6,179.66. And it is alleged that said Compton has failed to legally disburse said money, and that there now remains a balance of $2,500, which he has failed to legally disburse, or to pay over to orator, who is alleged to be his legal successor in office, although orator has often demanded the same. It is further averred that during the term of his said office the said Compton received from the state of Alabama large sums of money for each of said scholastic years, in the aggregate the sum of $30,000, for the public schools of Marengo county, some portion of which he legally disbursed, but a large part of which he did not legally disburse, and has refused to pay over to his successor in office. It is alleged that the money derived from the state and the money derived from the special tax were commingled by said Compton in a common fund, and that he kept no separate account of the disbursements made by him from said fund; that a large part of the special tax disbursed by said Compton was so disbursed by him in the payment of monthly salaries of from 50 to 100 teachers of the public schools of Marengo county, whose names and present addresses are unknown to orator, and that the date and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Julian v. Woolbert
...664, 37 So. 922; Lindsey Lumber Co. v. Mason, 165 Ala. 194, 51 So. 750; Chrichton v. Hayles, 176 Ala. 223, 57 So. 696; Compton v. Gilder, 176 Ala. 309, 58 So. 271; Lee v. Houston, 197 Ala. 652, 73 So. 327; Compton v. Collins, 190 Ala. 499, 67 So. 395; Metcalf v. Clemmons-Powers & Co., 76 So......
-
Martin Stamping & Stove Co. v. Manley
...Finance & Thrift Co., 226 Ala. 317, 146 So. 822; First National Bank of Oneonta v. Lowery, 234 Ala. 56 ,173 So. 382; Compton v. Gilder, 176 Ala. 309, 58 So. 271.' In Erswell v. Ford, 205 Ala. 494, 497, 88 So. 429, 432, it is '* * * To entitle complainant to a bill for discovery, he must fir......
-
City of Mobile v. McCown Oil Co.
...... of chancery to exercise jurisdiction." (Italics. supplied.). . . In the. case of Compton et al. v. Gilder, 176 Ala. 309, 58. So. 271, this court held that where the bill sets up facts. which render an accounting at law complicated if ......
- Lipscomb v. Bessemer Bd. of Ed.