Cummings v. Clinton County

• Decision Date: 23 March 1904
• Citation: 181 Mo. 162,79 S.W. 1127
• Parties: CUMMINGS v. CLINTON COUNTY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

79 S.W. 1127

181 Mo. 162

CUMMINGS v. CLINTON COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

March 23, 1904.

REWARD — OFFER — ACCEPTANCE — AUTHORITY TO MAKE OFFER.

1. Where a reward was offered for the apprehension of a murderer, one who made several trips at his own expense to find the criminal, and finally found him and secured his arrest and prosecution, which resulted in his conviction, accepted the offer, and is entitled to the reward.

2. Under Rev. St. 1899, § 2474, providing that any two judges of a county court may offer a reward for the arrest of a person committing a felony, a reward so offered is not rendered invalid because it is agreed to pay to a third party, as trustee, the sum offered.

3. Under Rev. St. 1899, § 2474, providing that any two judges of a county court may offer for the county a reward for the "apprehension and arrest" of a person committing a felony, a reward so offered for the "apprehension" of a felon is within their authority; the terms being synonymous.

4. Where the offer of a reward by county judges for the capture of a murderer, as authorized by Rev. St. 1899, § 2474, was in writing, it was binding on the county; it being within section 6759, requiring contracts by a county to be in writing.

5. Under Rev. St. 1899, § 2474, providing that any two county judges may, for the county, offer a reward for the arrest of a felon, where one county judge was authorized to make such an offer by another judge by telephone the offer was binding on the county.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clinton County; A. D. Burnes, Judge.

Action by Ed. L. Cummings against Clinton county. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Thos. W. Walker and Wm. Henry, for appellant. Frank B. Ellis, Jas. E. Goodrich, Joel Funkhouser, and R. H. Musser, for respondent.

BURGESS, J.

This suit was commenced by plaintiff in the county court of Clinton county to recover of said county a reward of $300 which he claims was offered by two judges of said court for the apprehension of the murderer of George H. Leonard, late city marshal of Cameron, Mo., to be paid upon final termination of legal proceedings resulting in the conviction of said murderer. The demand was disallowed by the county court, whereupon plaintiff appealed to the circuit court of said county, where the case was tried de novo before the court, a jury being waived. The trial resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff for said sum of $300 and costs. Thereafter defendant filed motions for new trial and in arrest, which were overruled, and defendant brings the case to this court by appeal for review.

The facts are that on the night of March 18, 1898, George H. Leonard, who was then city marshal of Cameron, Mo., was murdered in the railroad depot at Cameron Junction, in said city. Reward was offered for the apprehension and punishment of the murderer, and, for the purpose of indicating or expressing the amount that each subscriber would contribute for the purpose, a caption was formulated to a paper for them to sign, which reads as follows: "Cameron, Mo., March 28th, 1898. We the undersigned promise to pay the City Treasurer of the City of Cameron, Clinton County, Missouri, as trustee for the person, or persons apprehending the murderer of George H. Leonard, late city marshal of said city, the sum of money set opposite our names, to be paid upon final termination of legal proceedings resulting in the conviction of said murderer." E. S. Steele was at the time a member of the county court of Clinton county, for the district in which the city of Cameron was located, and was requested by citizens who were interesting themselves in raising the amount of the reward to subscribe some amount, as such member of the court, in behalf of Clinton county, to the end that the murderer might be apprehended and punished for the offense. Judge Steele expressed a willingness to do so, but seemed to be doubtful about getting either of the other members of the court to join him in so doing, and for that purpose called up Judge Atchison, another member of the court, over the telephone; and the two agreed that they would offer $300 in behalf of the county, whereupon Judge Steele wrote upon said subscription paper the following: "Clinton County, $300.00 by order of the county court in vacation, Steele and Atchison." Thereafter the sheriff of the county caused notices to be distributed throughout that part of the state, one of which, at least, reached the hands of the plaintiff, Ed. L. Cummings, who saw the paper signed by the different parties, and, acting upon the faith of the reward offered, made diligent effort to find out and apprehend the offender. At his own expense he made severa trips to different places in his efforts to find the criminal, and, hearing of a negro in Topeka, Kan., who answered the description of the alleged murderer, he went there, first in person, and later with an eyewitness to the homicide; both trips being made at his own expense. This witness identified one Robert Cushenberry as the person for whom the reward was offered, whereupon Cummings returned to Plattsburg, Clinton county, Mo., and caused to be filed against the said Robert Cushenberry a complaint charging him with the murder of Marshal Leonard, and also procured one J. E. Park to go to Topeka with requisition papers and bring the said Cushenberry back to Clinton county, so that he might be legally tried; the said Cummings accompanying said Park on his trip. They brought said Cushenberry back to Clinton county, and turned him over to the sheriff; and afterwards, at the September term, 1899, of the circuit court of said county, said Cushenberry was duly convicted of killing and murdering said Leonard. Afterwards said Cushenberry appealed said case to the Supreme Court of the state of Missouri, where the judgment of the lower court was in all things affirmed. 157 Mo. 168, 56 S. W. 737.

No declarations of law were asked by the plaintiff. The defendant asked the court, sitting as a jury, to declare the law of the case to be as follows: "(1) The court declares the law to be as follows: That there can be no liability against the defendant county on account of the demand...