Davis v. Hartwig

Decision Date30 March 1906
Citation195 Mo. 380,94 S.W. 507
PartiesDAVIS v. HARTWIG et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Suit by Abraham Davis against H. R. W. Hartwig and others. From a decree in favor of defendants, complainant appeals. Reversed.

Vories & Vories, Woodson & Woodson, Silver & Brown, and E. M. Harber, for appellant. O. E. Shultz and Eastin, Corby & Eastin, for respondent.

LAMM, J.

Abraham Davis, for himself and any other taxpayers desiring to come in, on the 7th day of September, 1905, filed a bill in equity in the circuit court of Buchanan county, directed against the judges of the Buchanan county court, the members of the board of managers of the state hospital for insane No. 2, the treasurer thereof and its superintendent, which bill (omitting the caption) is as follows:

"Plaintiff alleges that he is a lawful citizen and taxpayer within and for Buchanan county, Mo., and that, as such, he brings this action upon his own behalf and on behalf of all other taxpayers similarly situated; that defendants H. R. W. Hartwig, Edgar Sleppy, and John H. Duncan are the legally elected, qualified, and acting judges of the county court of Buchanan county, Mo., and as such, have power and authority to issue warrants for the disbursement of the funds of said county, including payments to state hospital for insane No. 2 for the purpose of maintaining the insane poor of Buchanan county; that John H. Carey, C. C. Bigger, John S. Major, Samuel Gillum, and P. E. Field are the regularly appointed, qualified, and acting board of managers of state hospital for insane No. 2 of the state of Missouri, and as such board of managers have control and supervision of the affairs of said institution; that defendants James Todd and Charles R. Woodson are respectively the treasurer and superintendent of said state hospital for insane No. 2; that the foregoing officers of said institution have exclusive control of all the property, real and personal, belonging to said institution and of the funds paid thereto by the several counties maintaining insane poor therein, including Buchanan county, and in their respective capacities provide for the disbursement of said funds and actually disburse the same. Plaintiff alleges further that state hospital for insane No. 2 is an institution created and erected by the state of Missouri for the care, confinement, and treatment of persons of unsound mind, and is governed by the laws of the state of Missouri relating to asylums and elcemosynary institutions; that said institution was originally built and equipped by appropriations made by the state Legislature in the years from 1872 to 1874, and since said time the state has regularly appropriated, from time to time, sufficient funds to pay the salaries of the superintendent and the various subordinate officers and assistant physicians, and at divers times since the creation and erection of said institution the state has, as the demand therefor became urgent, made certain appropriations for the erection and equipment of various additions and enlargements to the buildings and grounds of said institution. In addition thereto various sums of money have, as occasion required, been provided by the state for purchasing furniture and supplies and for repairing the buildings and maintaining and improving the grounds of said institution. There are, and were at the time said institution was built and equipped, in the state of Missouri and in the territory of said state adjacent to the said institution, a great many persons of unsound mind, who are at the same time, in destitute circumstances, and are, therefore, public charges upon the several counties in which they reside, or have resided, and as few, if any, of the counties are provided with the means and equipment for properly confining and treating such persons, the state of Missouri built and equipped said institution for the purpose of better caring for and treating such patients, and provided, in the law governing it, that the several counties should have the right to send thereto such of their insane poor, as were entitled to admission, and should pay therefor semiannually in cash in advance such sums for their support and maintenance as might be necessary, not exceeding $2.50 per week for each patient, and in addition thereto the actual cost of their clothing and the expense of removal to and from said institution. In pursuance of the provisions of said law, and in the exercise of the right given by said law, Buchanan county has, by its proper authorities, sent to said institution and now maintains therein more than 200 patients at a cost to the county and the taxpayers thereof of many thousands of dollars annually, and the money with which said county pays for the support of said patients is taken from the general revenue of the county. Plaintiff further states that there are two sources, and only two, from which the aforesaid institution can derive its funds, namely by appropriations from the state treasury and by payments made by counties or persons who maintain patients in the institution; that under the law it is the duty of the state to provide from its treasury all the funds necessary to build, improve, furnish, and equip the institution and prepare and maintain it as an asylum for the mentally afflicted; that under the law it is the duties of the counties and others maintaining patients therein to provide and pay to the institution such actual sums as may be necessary to support said patients and pay the salaries of nurses, attendants, and other employés, not exceeding the sum of $2.50 for each patient; that the money paid to the institution by the several counties maintaining insane patients therein, including Buchanan county and by individuals who keep and maintain patients therein, is denominated the "support fund," and under the law said fund must be used exclusively for the support and maintenance of the patients, and cannot be diverted therefrom and used for any other purpose or purposes; that it is the duty of the board of managers to ascertain the exact cost of maintaining patients in the institution and to include in their account only those necessary items which go to provide food, attention, and necessary running expenses of the institution and exclude from their account all other items of whatsoever character.

"Defendants John H. Carey, C. C. Bigger, John S. Major, Samuel Gillum, and P. E. Field have, as the board of managers of the institution aforesaid, arbitrarily and without inquiry into the manner in which the money is expended, charged the several counties, including Buchanan county, for the maintenance of their insane poor a figure largely in excess of the amount necessary to keep and maintain said patients, and plaintiff says that the excess over and above the amount required to pay for the support of the said patients is diverted to uses and purposes prohibited by law to the great detriment of the taxpayers; that said board instead of examining the expenditures of the said institution, and instead of inquiring into the necessities of the patients therein, to ascertain, as the law requires, the actual amount required to support them, have charged the highest figure allowed by law, to wit, $2.50 per week per patient and have required Buchanan county to pay the said price of $2.50 per week per patient on each and every one of the more than 200 patients kept by said Buchanan county in said hospital, when the said sum is far in excess of the actual cost of supporting and maintaining said patients, and the exorbitant excess constitutes a large, wasteful, and unlawful drain upon the taxpayers of the county. Large portions of the excess paid by the counties maintaining insane poor in the said institution, including Buchanan county, are expended in permanently improving the grounds, in paying for carpenter work and other labor required to erect new buildings for the state; in furnishing the said buildings and procuring other articles of a permanent character which become the property of the state of Missouri, although the state paid nothing for them and they were purchased with money unlawfully extracted from the counties; that the excess funds procured in the manner aforesaid are openly and defiantly used by the said board in violation of law, and for the purpose of furthering their own political ambitions, and the superintendent of the institution, defendant C. R. Woodson, speaking for the said board, frequently asserts in the public press of the state and especially of the city of St. Joseph, that contracts for the erection of new buildings are let piecemeal in order that the servants and employés of the institution on the regular payroll, and others employed and paid out of the support fund may perform work upon the said buildings; that by this method buildings which would otherwise cost the state $40,000 may be erected for between $20,000 and $25,000. Plaintiff avers and charges that all work so performed upon the buildings by the regular employés of the institution, and by others temporarily employed, is paid for out of the support fund which is provided by the counties solely for maintaining and supporting the patients, and not for the purpose of erecting buildings and buying furniture, and the funds so used belong to the counties from which the said board has illegally exacted them, and that the state of Missouri at large has no right to have buildings erected and furniture bought for it by the several counties. The said board and the said superintendent, by using the funds contributed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Rookery Realty, Loan, Investment & Building Company v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 16, 1922
    ... ... State ex rel. Wear v. Springfield Gas & Elec ... Co., 204 S.W. 942; Owen v. Ford, 49 Mo. 436; ... Carlin v. Wolff, 154 Mo. 539; Davis v ... Hartwig, 195 Mo. 380; Brier v. Bank, 225 Mo ... 673; Southwest Mo. Ry. Co. v. Mining Co., 138 ... Mo.App. 129. (d) The only fraud for ... ...
  • Fred Wolferman, Inc. v. Root
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 8, 1947
    ... ... Constitution of the United States and by Section 8 of the ... Missouri Bill of Rights. 31 C.J. 45; Davis v ... Hartwig, 94 S.W. 507; American Federation of Labor ... v. Swing, 61 S.Ct. 568; Thornhill v. Alabama, ... 60 S.Ct. 736; Park & Tilford ... ...
  • Clark v. Crown Drug Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 14, 1940
    ...to injunction when there was no evidence that defendant was violating act at time of trial. 32 Corpus Juris 76, sec. 63; Davis v. Hartwig, 195 Mo. 380, 398, 94 S.W. 507. Harold Randall and A. B. Lovan for respondent. (1) Under the evidence the defendant is making sales of intoxicating liquo......
  • Clark v. Crown Drug Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1941
    ... ... evidence that defendant was violating act at time of trial ... 32 C. J. 76, sec. 63; Davis v. Hartwig, 195 Mo. 380, 94 S.W ...          Harold ... Randall and A. B. Lovan for respondent ...          (1) ... Under the ... ...
  • 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