Drainage Dist. No. 1 Reformed, of Stoddard County v. Matthews

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CONKLING
• Citation: Drainage Dist. No. 1 Reformed, of Stoddard County v. Matthews, 234 S.W.2d 567, 361 Mo. 286 (Mo. 1950)
• Decision Date: 13 November 1950
• Docket Number: No. 41649,No. 1,41649,1
• Parties: DRAINAGE DIST. NO. 1 REFORMED, OF STODDARD COUNTY et al. v. MATTHEWS et al

Page 567

234 S.W.2d 567

361 Mo. 286

DRAINAGE DIST. NO. 1 REFORMED, OF STODDARD COUNTY et al. v. MATTHEWS et al.

No. 41649.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

Nov. 13, 1950.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 11, 1950.

C. A. Powell, Dexter, for appellants.

M. Walker Cooper, Joe Welborn, Bloomfield, for respondents.

CONKLING, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiffs (a Drainage District and certain landowners and taxpayers therein) appealed from the order of the circuit court of Stoddard County sustaining the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended petition filed by plaintiffs, and entering judgment for defendants, in an action wherein plaintiffs sought to enjoin the payment of sixty-six certain drainage district maintenance warrants drawn and issued by the county court of Stoddard County in 1936 and 1937 in the total amount of $17,303.20. In the petition plaintiffs also sought judgment against defendants for $16,145.72 alleged to have been wrongfully paid defendants on certain other maintenance warrants of said drainage district.

It appears from the petition before us that the appellant-plaintiff Drainage District No. 1 Reformed of Stoddard County, Missouri (hereinafter referred to as the District) was organized in 1910 by the County Court of Stoddard County, pursuant to what is now Article 3 of Chapter 79 of R.S.Mo. 1939, Mo.R.S.A.; that in June, 1936, upon petition of seventy-two landowners in the district to the county court, that such court have the drainage ditches in said district cleaned out and redredged to their original capacity, the county court, as the governing body of said drainage district, contracted with one William Crumpecker to do such work, and, by contract, employed a civil engineer to supervise such recleaning and redredging; that thereafter in the years 1936 and 1937. the county court issued the warrants in question here (and others) to Crumpecker, drawn on the maintenance fund of said District for such recleaning and redredging, in the total amount of $40,710.89; and that all of those warrants have been paid except the $17.303.20 face amount thereof sought in this action to be repudiated. The warrants drew 6% interest from date of issuance. From 1936 to 1948, inclusive, the county court levied a maintenance tax on the land in the district, which has been largely used to pay the warrants issued to Crumpecker.

It further appears that the Bank of Advance, Stoddard County, Missouri, on November 15, 1941, filed its petition (Case No. 14740) in the Circuit Court of Stoddard County in 84 counts (each count upon a separate warrant) seeking judgment upon the then unpaid warrants issued originally to Crumpecker for doing the above mentioned recleaning and redredging. The defendants in that action were the plaintiff-appellant Drainage District No. 1 Reformed of Stoddard County, Missouri, and the then three members of the county court of Stoddard County. The 66 warrants involved in the instant case (representing a total face value of $17,303.20) with the exceptions of warrants numbered 11039, 10704 and 11397 (which latter three totalled only $636.12), were included in those sued upon by the Bank of Advance in 1941. All the other warrants sued upon in the case by the Bank of Advance have since been paid.

It further appears that in the above mentioned suit by the Bank of Advance (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Case No. 14740) it was alleged in each count thereof that the county court, as the governing body of the drainage district, 'had lawfully entered into a contract with Wm. Crumpecker for the redredging and recleaning of the drainage ditches of the defendant Drainage District and that * * * the said Wm. Crumpecker * * * did fully and completely perform all the terms, agreements and conditions of said contract * * * that * * * the defendant Drainage District No. 1 Reformed * * * was lawfully indebted to the said Wm. Cumpecker * * * for excavation work done in pursuance to said contract, and that the County Court * * * found and adjudged that the defendant Drainage District owed and was lawfully indebted to the said Wm. Crumpecker for work done in pursuance to said contract (in the amount of each warrant sued on in each count and the county court ordered that a Maintenance Warrant be drawn on the County Treasurer in the proper sum) in proper form payable out of any money in the treasury appropriated for Drainage District No. 1 Reformed Maintenance, be issued and signed, (etc.) * * * that said warrant was so issued and signed * * * and attested * * * and that said warrant was lawfully issued on said debts in favor of the said Wm. Crumpecker * * * to bear interest * * * at the rate of six per cent per annum until paid; that thereafter for valuable consideration * * * the said Wm. Crumpecker assigned and sold said warrant to this plaintiff (Bank of Advance); that the plaintiff is the legal holder and owner of said warrant; that demand had been made upon the Treasurer of Stoddard County for the payment of said warrant; that payment was refused by said Treasurer for the reason that there was no money in the treasury for the purpose of paying said warrant,' etc.

It also further appears from the judgment in that case: that defendants in Case No. 14740 were 'duly notified by personal service of summons by the Sheriff of Stoddard County, Missouri, * * * notifying them to appear, answer and plead'; that no defendant filed any pleading in the case or appeared therein; that on December 19, 1941, the plaintiff bank (of Advance) secured a default judgment in the cause in the total sum of $34,945.93; that in said judgment the court found defendants failed to appear 'within the time required by law * * * and being now three times solemnly called, come not but make default;' that plaintiff submitted its cause to the court for hearing and 'the court doth find that plaintiff is entitled to recover (upon said warrants) * * * $34,945.93 * * * together with interest on said amount in the sum of 6% per annum from date of this judgment until paid,' etc.

The instant petition further alleges that the defendants in case No. 14740 relied upon the allegations of the petition in that case, were misled thereby, believed them true and 'made default in said cause,' but, that it defendants in Case No. 14740 had known certain matters (in the instant petition alleged to have existed) 'said defendants (in case No. 14740) could and would have pleaded as a defense' said certain matters 'which said plea would have been a good and lawful defense to said cause of action,' in case No. 14740. It is also alleged that the instant individual plaintiffs are landowners within the district and as such are obligated to pay such maintenance taxes as are lawfully levied; and that the instant individual defendants (other than Jonas (Jack) Matthews, Treasurer and Exofficio Collector of Stoddard County) hold and claim to own the warrants instantly in issue.

The instant petition further alleges that certain of the instant defendants have collected principal and interest on the judgment and warrants in question in the total amount of $16,345.72, and prays a decree (1) enjoining the defendant Treasurer and Ex-officio Collector of the county, and all his successors in office from paying any and all of the warrants as to either principal or interest, (2) enjoining defendants or any of them from collecting or attempting to collect upon the above judgment or warrants, (3) declaring the judgment (in case No. 14740) and the warrants void, (4) requiring the production of the warrants for cancellation, (5) that if the warrants are valid, the interest heretofore paid thereon be offset, and (6) finding that defendants are indebted to the drainage district in the sum of $16,145.72.

The proceedings in the county court of Stoddard County, the said warrants issued by that court, and the judgment of the circuit court of that county in case No. 14740 are attacked and sought to be declared void on many grounds. Plaintiffs' contentions may be compressed, classified and stated as follows: The warrants are attacked, it being alleged (1) there was no proper endorsement and assignment by Crumpecker, (2) no presentment of the warrants for payment to the county treasurer, and (3) no certification by the county treasurer that there were no funds to pay them. The county court proceedings are attacked, it being alleged that (1) the county court had no authority to proceed except under R.S.Mo. 1939, Secs. 12435 and 12436, Mo.R.S.A., and that the court did not comply with the procedural provisions of those sections as to the engineer's report, notice, hearing, division of costs, etc., and that the maintenance tax levy made by the county court was therefore illegal, and (2) the county court had no authority to issue said warrants with an interest bearing provision. The judgment obtained by the Bank of Advance in Case No. 14740 is attacked, it being alleged that (1) the Bank did not own the warrants and therefore had no right to bring suit or have judgment, and (2) the Bank's petition in that case contained untrue allegations of fact.

The petition before us contains many forced and unallowable conclusions of the pleader which are sought to be drawn from matters stated as facts, and many conclusions of law sought to be drawn from certain statutes cited. But the defendants' motion to dismiss admits only the material facts that are well pleaded; the motion does not admit the pleaders' conclusions of law nor his forced conclusions from the facts. Therrien v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co., Mo.Sup., 227 S.W.2d 708; Bernhardt v. Long, 357 Mo. 427, 209 S.W.2d 112.

In R.S.Mo. 1939, Sec. 12433, Mo.R.S.A., the General Assembly imposed the duty and delegated to the county court the power 'to maintain the efficiency' of county court drainage districts. Those courts are there 'vested with the continuous management and control of said districts with the duty and power of...