Hulsey v. Walker County

• Decision Date: 17 February 1906
• Citation: 40 So. 311,147 Ala. 501
• Parties: HULSEY v. WALKER COUNTY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

40 So. 311

147 Ala. 501

HULSEY v. WALKER COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 17, 1906

Appeal from Chancery Court, Walker County; A. H. Benners Chancellor.

"To be officially reported."

Suit by Walker county against John B. Hulsey. Decree for complainant. Respondent appeals. Reversed.

This was a bill filed in the chancery court of Walker county by Walker county in its corporate capacity and through its proper officers against John B. Hulsey, and prays that a receiver be appointed to take charge of and superintend the county's poorhouse; that said John B. Hulsey be enjoined from further exercising acts of superintendence or control over said poorhouse or its property or inmates; that an account be stated between complainant and Hulsey, and said Hulsey be required to pay for timber cut and used by Hulsey belonging to complainant, and for the goods and merchandise bought by Hulsey and used for his own benefit, which was charged to and paid by complainant. The case made by the allegations of the bill is that the county commissioners purchased for the county a certain tract of land, put improvements on it, cleared and fenced it, and established it as a county poor farm, and placed such indigent persons there as had a right to be there, elected Hulsey superintendent and placed him in charge of the poor farm; that Hulsey in dereliction of his duty cut timber from said lands and sold it for his own benefit, bought goods for himself and family and had them charged to Walker county; and that the same had been paid out of the treasury of the county. The bill also alleges flagrant disregard of duty by Hulsey as such superintendent. It is further alleged that at a regular term of the commissioners' court Hulsey was removed as superintendent, and one Snoddy, a fit and suitable person for such place, was elected superintendent to fill Hulsey's place; that proper notice in writing and verbally was given said Hulsey of his removal, and demand made on him for an accounting for the timber cut and goods purchased for his own use, and a refusal on his part either to make an accounting or to surrender possession of the property and other things belonging to plaintiff. The bill also alleges the insolvency of Hulsey and his inability to respond in damages at law. There was a motion by respondent to dismiss the bill for want of equity and to dissolve injunction. A number of demurrers were filed to the bill which are not necessary to set out. The court overruled the motion to dismiss and the demurrers and from this action an appeal is taken.

Ray, Leith & Shephard, for appellant.

Lacey & Lacey and W. P. Davis, for appellee.

ANDERSON J.

Mr Pomeroy, in his excellent work on Equity Jurisprudence (3d Ed.) vol. 4, § 1421, says: "The instances in which the legal remedies are held to be inadequate, and therefore a suit in equity for an accounting proper, are where there are mutual accounts between the plaintiff and the defendant (that is, where each of the two parties has received and paid an account of the other); where the accounts are all on one side, but there are circumstances of great complication or difficulties...