Davis v. Millsap

• Decision Date: 06 November 1911
• Parties: DAVIS v. MILLSAP.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

140 S.W. 751

159 Mo. App. 167

DAVIS v. MILLSAP.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 6, 1911.

REWARDS (§ 11) — PERSONS ENTITLED — SHERIFF.

Where rewards were offered for the capture of one accused of crime, and a sheriff, elected after the escape and offering of rewards, caused the capture and return of accused from another state, he was entitled to the reward, even though an agreement to pay a public officer for the performance of his duty is void as contrary to public policy; the capture being an extraordinary service outside his official duty, and for which no regular compensation was allowed.

Error to Circuit Court, Oregon County; W. N. Evans, Judge.

Action by C. L. Davis against J. P. Millsap. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

E. P. Dorris, for plaintiff in error.

GRAY, J.

Can a sheriff who has located, arrested, and returned to his county in this state a fugitive from justice recover a reward offered for such services? If this question is answered in the affirmative, the judgment must be affirmed.

On the 3d day of February, 1908, W. S. Millsap was killed in Oregon county, and Luther Minnich was charged with the crime. Minnich escaped from Missouri, and was supposed to be a fugitive from justice. The county court of Oregon county offered a reward of $200 for his arrest and conviction, and the state offered a reward of $300 on the same terms, and the plaintiff in error offered a reward of $100. The evidence was conflicting whether plaintiff's money was to be paid for the arrest, or for the arrest and conviction. This question, however, was submitted to the jury by a proper instruction, and the verdict is conclusive on this court.

Davis was not the sheriff at the time the crime was committed, but was subsequently elected. After his election, he undertook to locate Minnich, and was successful through assistance of officers and individuals in Idaho and Washington. For such assistance he paid $25 to the postmaster at Russell, Idaho, $125 to Miss Alice Shoutel, and the sum of $75 to the detective for making the arrest in the state of Washington. After Minnich was arrested in Washington, Davis procured a warrant for his arrest, and, clothed with requisition papers, he went to Washington, and brought Minnich to this state. He was paid by the state $193 for his mileage and expenses in making the trip. The cause was tried before a jury, resulting in a verdict in favor of Davis for the $100 offered by Millsap.

From an early day it has been established, and continues to this time, that an agreement to pay money to a sheriff or other public officer for doing what he ought to do is void and against public policy. 34 Cyc. 753; Kick v. Merry, 23 Mo. 72, 66 Am. Dec. 658; Smith v. Vernon County, 188 Mo. 501, 87 S. W. 949, 70 L. R. A. 59, 107 Am. St. Rep. 324; Bank v. Edmund, 76 Ohio St. 396, 81 N. E. 641, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1170. On the other hand, the law has never declared that under no circumstances is an officer entitled to the reward. Smith v. Vernon County, supra; Cornwell v. St. Louis Transit Co., 100 Mo. App. 258, 73 S. W. 305; Gregg v. Pierce, 53 Barb. (N. Y.) 387; Hogan v. Stophlet, 179 Ill. 150, 53 N. E. 604, 44 L. R. A. 809. The rule is correctly declared in Cornwell v. Transit Co., supra, as follows: ...