Gammon v. Lafayette Cnty.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1883
• Citation: 79 Mo. 223
• Parties: GAMMON v. LAFAYETTE COUNTY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

79 Mo. 223

GAMMON

v.LAFAYETTE COUNTY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1883.

Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court.--HON. WM. T. WOOD, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Hall & Young for appellant.

Alex. Graves for respondent.

HENRY, J.

This suit originated in a justice's court in Lafayette county, and was an account for a book-case furnished the office of the probate judge of said county, indorsed to be correct by Jno. S. Blackwell, prosecuting attorney. The book-case was purchased by the plaintiff, then probate judge of the county, of Winkler & Winkler, who presented their account to the county court for payment, which was refused, whereupon plaintiff paid it, and sues the county for the amount. Evidence was introduced tending to prove that the book-case was necessary furniture for the office, and also to the contrary. Plaintiff had judgment, from which the county has appealed.

1. JUSTICE'S COURTS: jurisdiction: suits against counties.

It is contended that the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction of suits against the county; and for this position appellant relies upon sections 1199 and 1216, Revised Statutes, and section 4, page 225, General Statutes. Section 1199 provides that the county court “shall have power and authority to audit and settle all demands against the county,” and section 1216 gives an appeal to the circuit court in such matters, and section 4 provides that “all actions, local or transitory, against any county, may be commenced * * in the circuit court of the county against which the suit is brought.” The law in force when this suit was commenced, required a suit before a justice of the peace to be brought before a justice of the township either where defendant resides, or in an adjoining township. Section 2835, defining the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, and section 2838 which declares “that every justice shall have jurisdiction co-extensive with the county,” are broad enough in their terms to embrace suits against a county, in cases where the amount of the demand is not in excess of a justice's jurisdiction, and the question is, do the sections above referred to restrict so as to exclude suits against a county from that jurisdiction?

2. ____: county court: jurisdiction: suit against counties.

It is urged that because the county court has power expressly given to audit and settle all demands against the county, the justice has no jurisdiction of suits against the county. If that power conferred upon the county court is repugnant to the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, it is equally repugnant to that conferring jurisdiction of suits against the county, upon the circuit court. That section does not contemplate a suit against the county in its technical sense. It constitutes the county court the agent of the county to audit and settle demands against the county, and although an appeal is allowed to the circuit court from the rejection by the county court of a demand against the county, yet in the first instance it is not strictly speaking, a suit in the county court. No petition is filed, no parties are summoned to answer the demand, and no issues are triable by jury, except in the court's discretion.

3. ____: jurisdiction: suits against counties.

It is also contended that the requirement, that suits before a justice of the peace shall be brought in a township in which defendant resides, or in an adjoining township, precludes the idea of the justice's jurisdiction of suits against a county. Suits in the circuit court must be brought either in the county in which defendant resides, or in which plaintiff resides and defendant is...