Cook v. Putnam Cnty.

Decision Date31 October 1879
PartiesCOOK, Appellant, v. PUTNAM COUNTY.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Putnam Circuit Court.--HON. JOHN W. HENRY, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

A. W. Mullins for appellant.

C. L. Dobson for respondent.

NORTON, J.

This case is before us on appeal from the action of the circuit court of Putnam county, in sustaining a demurrer to the following petition:

Plaintiff, by this, his second amended petition, states that he was county treasurer of said Putnam county, in the State of Missouri, from and after the 8th day of November, 1868, until the 28th day of November, 1872, duly qualified and acting as such. Plaintiff states that during the time aforesaid, he received as such treasurer the aggregate sum of $6,259.52, moneys belonging to the county poor fund of said county; and that during that time as such county treasurer he paid warrants to various persons which had been drawn by the county court of said county on plaintiff as such treasurer, and payable out of said county poor fund, to the amount of $8,235.75, making the sum of $1,986.18, paid out by him as such treasurer, in excess of all receipts into said fund. Plaintiff states that each and all of said warrants so paid by him were legal and valid, and were at the time they were paid by him a subsisting indebtedness against said Putnam county, the defendant, and that said payments were made by plaintiff at the instance and request of the defendant, acting by and through its said county court, and under the assurance that the account between the plaintiff and defendant would, at the end of plaintiff's term of office be correctly adjusted, settled and liquidated. Plaintiff says that at the end of his said term of office, the defendant acting by and through its county court, received from him the said warrants so paid by him and canceled the same, and that said county court, after having undertaken to make final settlement with plaintiff, and after receiving and canceling said warrants, agreed to pay plaintiff the balance due him on said account, but neglected, and subsequently failed, and refused and still refuses to pay the same or any part thereof, or to complete such settlement with plaintiff. And the plaintiff says that said sum of $1,986.18, together with the interest thereon since the 28th day of November, 1872, is still due and owing plaintiff, and for which he prays judgment.

Plaintiff's cause of action, as stated in said petition, is based upon the fact that as county treasurer having in his charge the county poor fund of Putnam county, he had paid out in county warrants drawn upon said fund the sum of $1,968.18 in excess of all receipts into said fund. Under the statute creating the office of county treasurer and regulating his duties, these payments were wholly unauthorized. Sections 13 and 14, Wag. Stat., 998, provide that the duty of a county treasurer in relation to the county poor fund, shall be the same as that prescribed by law in relation to other county funds, and that he shall keep the account of such funds separate from all other accounts; it is further provided in section 33, Wag. Stat., 415, that no county treasurer shall pay any warrant drawn on him unless it is presented by the party in whose favor it is drawn, or by his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Verdin v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 26 Noviembre 1895
    ...the plaintiff must stand or fall, because the court will not supply by intendment an averment the pleader has failed to make. Cook v. Putnam Co., 70 Mo. 668. As to the case of Bank v. Evans, 51 Mo. 335, which announces the "legal acumen" doctrine, I am persuaded, on mature reflection, it sh......
  • Bagnell Timber Co. v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 17 Marzo 1904
    ... ... Lankford v. Sanger, 40 Mo. 160; Pier v ... Heinrichoffen, 52 Mo. 333; Cook v. Putnam ... County, 70 Mo. 668; Brown v. Cape Girardeau, 90 ... Mo. 377; Mitchell v. City ... ...
  • Verdin v. The City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 19 Noviembre 1895
    ... ... averment the pleader has failed to make. Cook v. Putnam ... Co. , 70 Mo. 668 ...          As to ... the case of Bank v. Evans , 51 ... ...
  • Catron v. LaFayette County
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 9 Noviembre 1891
    ...98 Mo. 163. "The counties of this state have no inherent or general power to issue bonds." Donaldson v. Butler Co., 98 Mo. 166; Cook v. Putnam Co., 70 Mo. 668. (4) "It would seem quite obvious that every essential element of such power must be plainly set forth in the pleading which seeks a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT