Jefferson City Sav. Ass'n v. Morrison

• Decision Date: 31 July 1871
• Citation: 48 Mo. 273
• Parties: JEFFERSON CITY SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, Defendant in Error, v. A. W. MORRISON, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

48 Mo. 273

JEFFERSON CITY SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, Defendant in Error,

v.A. W. MORRISON, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1871.

Error to Cole Circuit Court.

Ewing & Smith, for defendant in error.

A. M. Lay and Geo. T. White, for plaintiff in error.

CURRIER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant executed to the plaintiff's assignor an obligation as follows:

“Received of sheriff of Camden county, by hand of G. M. Swink, four hundred dollars in cash

$400

Draft to T. E. Tutt & Co

135

$535

Five hundred and thirty-five dollars to be placed to his credit in the settlement of the revenue of his county, 3d May, 1861.

(Signed)

A. W. MORRISON, Treas.”

The plaintiffs, as assignees, sue upon this obligation, and the main question arising upon the merits respects the defendant's liability for interest. He held possession of the money from May 3, 1861, to February, 1866, a period of about five years, without causing it to be placed to the credit of the party according to the terms of the receipt, or otherwise accounting for it. He nevertheless denies his liability for interest.

The rule in relation to the allowance of interest, in the absence of an express or implied contract to pay it, is not the same in this country as in England. “The courts of the United States,” says Sedgwick, “have shown themselves more liberally disposed, making the allowance of interest more nearly to depend on the equity of the case, and not requiring either an express or an implied promise to sustain the claim.” (Sedgw. Dam. 438.)

Where money is received by a party who applies it to his own use, or otherwise improperly detains it, it is but just that he should pay interest upon the money so used or detained, and the courts of this country hold him to that liability. If, therefore, the defendant in this cause applied the funds intrusted to him to his own use, or otherwise improperly detained them, he should be held liable for the interest.

On this subject the jury were instructed as follows: “Among other facts to be found by the jury in this case is, whose duty it was, under the agreement, to make the settlement with the auditor for the revenue. If they believe from the evidence that Cummins, who was the sheriff of Camden county, from whom the money was received, was to make the settlement before Morrison was to pay over said money, then Morrison is not liable for interest on said money until Cummins made such settlement, or until a demand was made of Morrison for the same; but if they believe from the evidence that Morrison was to make such settlement, or was to apply said money whenever he received the same to settle up or close up Cummins' account with the auditor, then Morrison is liable for interest on said money from the time he should have so placed the same to the credit of Cummins.”

I fail to perceive that the defendant has any just ground of objection to this instruction. It was sufficiently favorable to him. The fair construction of the receipt upon its face is that Morrison should place the money to Cummins' credit in some reasonable time, without waiting for any further action on the part of Cummins. Morrison held the money for nearly five years, as we have seen, and there is no pretense that he kept it locked up and out of use awaiting a call from Cummins.

The petition was demurred to, and the...