Geo. D. Barnard & Co. v. Knox County

• Decision Date: 06 February 1889
• Citation: 37 F. 563
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
• Parties: GEO. D. BARNARD & CO. v. KNOX COUNTY.

37 F. 563

GEO. D. BARNARD & CO. v. KNOX COUNTY.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division.

February 6, 1889

Taylor & Pollard, for plaintiff.

G. R Balthrope and W. C. Hollister, for defendant.

THAYER J.

This is an action on 49 county warrants, issued during the years from 1882 to 1886, both inclusive, in payment for books and stationery sold and delivered to Knox county at the instance and request of various county officers, and for public use. The defense is that when the warrants sued upon were issued by the county court of Knox county, the county court had drawn warrants in excess of the total revenue of the county for the years during which the warrants were respectively issued, and that the debt sued for was for that reason contracted in violation of section 12, art. 10, Const. Mo which provides that 'no county * * * shall be allowed to become indebted in any manner, or for any purpose, to an amount exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for such year, without the assent of two-thirds of the voters thereof, voting at an election to be held for that purpose ' The case has been submitted upon an agreed statement of facts, from which it appears that the books and stationery in question were furnished for public use at the instance and request of the probate judge, the clerks of the county and circuit court, and the sheriff and collector of the county and that the same 'were suitable and necessary for the officers in their official capacity to whom they were sold ' It also appears that the total warrants issued by Knox county each year from 1882 to 1886, both inclusive, exceeded the revenue derived for the respective years from the highest rate of taxation which the law permits, to-wit 50 cents on each $100 of valuation; but that, deducting the warrants drawn on the 'pauper fund' and 'road and bridge fund,' the warrants drawn in any one of said years did not exceed the revenue for said year. Judgment must be rendered for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed in each count, (that is, for the amount of the warrant described therein and interest at 6 per cent. per annum from the date of the alleged presentation,) for two reasons: In the first place, there is nothing in the agreed statement to show that the indebtedness sued for was illegally contracted, even if it be conceded that the constitutional inhibition (section 12, art. 10, supra) applies or has reference to such an indebtedness. The only fact admitted by the agreed case is that warrants were issued each year from 1882 to 1886, inclusive, in excess of the total county revenue for the respective years, provided warrants drawn on the 'pauper and road and bridge funds' are taken into account, and not otherwise. But whether, when the several items of indebtedness sued for were contracted, and the various warrants were drawn, the limit of legal indebtedness had then been reached, and the county had exhausted its power to contract further indebtedness, is now shown. The stipulation falls short of establishing the facts alleged in defendant's special plea. In this state, as is well know,...