Knox County v. Hunolt

Decision Date23 May 1892
Citation19 S.W. 628,110 Mo. 67
PartiesKNOX COUNTY v. HUNOLT et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Knox county; BEN. E. TURNER, Judge.

Action by Knox county for the use of the school fund against Antone Hunolt, Frank Boone, and George W. Buford and Masauela F. Buford, executors of the estate of Wellington Buford, deceased, to recover damages for the wrongful use of the county and township school funds. Plaintiff obtained judgment for the county school funds misapplied. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

G. R. Balthrope, L. F. Cottey, and O. D. Jones, for appellants. Wm. Clancy, for respondent.

BLACK, J.

Antone Hunolt, Frank Boone, and Wellington Buford were the judges of the county court of Knox county in 1885. As such judges they caused warrants to be drawn upon and paid out of the county and township school funds for other than school purposes, and this is a suit against them to recover damages for the wrongful use of such funds. The petition avers that the defendants, as such judges, unlawfully, knowingly, and fraudulently misapplied the funds, setting out the various warrants drawn and paid. The answer disputes the right of the county to prosecute this suit. It is then averred, in substance, that the county was financially embarrassed; that to pay pressing county demands the county court borrowed the school funds; that defendants were advised and believed they had a right to thus use them, and, being ignorant of the law, they so used them in good faith. The trial court disregarded the averments as to the township funds, but gave judgment for the plaintiff for the county school funds misapplied in the sum of $2,691.60, from which judgment the defendants appealed. The evidence discloses these facts: The county had no money in its treasury, and county warrants were depreciated. The county was indebted to the insane asylum for care of the insane poor, and to pay this and some other county debts the judges caused warrants to be issued upon and paid out of the county school fund. Before doing this they consulted the prosecuting attorney. He seems to have advised them that technically they ought not to use the school fund for such purposes, but that they could do so by protecting that fund by a warrant, meaning a county warrant payable to the school fund. The defendants say that Judge Wilson, formerly circuit judge, advised them it was better to borrow the school fund than to sell county warrants at 40 or 50 cents on the dollar. They had information that other counties were doing the same thing. The transaction is designated on the county court records as a "loan," but it does not appear that any warrant was ever issued payable to the school fund.

1. The first contention on the part of the appellants is that the county is not a party in interest, nor the trustee of an express trust, and hence it cannot maintain this suit. In support of this claim, we are cited to Cedar Co. v. Johnson, 50 Mo. 225. That case and others do hold that counties have no interest in the township school funds, and that county courts are the agents of the state, and not of the counties, in the management of these township funds. Ray Co. v. Bentley, 49 Mo. 236. Hence the counties are not liable for the mismanagement of these township funds. Board v. Boyd, 58 Mo. 276. But it is competent for the state to direct suits to be brought in the name of a county for the use of township funds. Whether the law has made any provision whereby a suit like this should be brought in the name of a county for the use of a township fund we need not stop to inquire, for this is not such a suit as it now stands. The trial court disregarded all the averments as to the misappropriation of township funds. The case as it stands now is one to recover damages against the defendants for diverting the county, not township, funds. In this state we have three distinct permanent school funds, namely, the state, county, and township funds. The county fund belongs to the county, and is a different thing from the township fund. Sections 7073, 7103, Rev. St. 1879. While the county school fund is set apart by law for special purposes, still it belongs to the county, and it must follow that the county is the proper party to sue the agents of the county for its mismanagement. We entertain no doubt but this suit is properly brought in the name of the county.

2. The proof shows that some of the warrants were drawn and paid out of the swamp land fund, while the petition states that they were drawn upon and paid out of the county school fund. The net proceeds arising from the sale of swamp lands are and have been, since 1855, a part of the common county school fund. 2 Rev. St. 1855, p. 1006, § 6. The objection, therefore, to the introduction of these warrants in evidence, was properly overruled, for there was in fact no variance between the proof and the averments of the petition. The funds were the same, and devoted to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • State ex rel. and to Use of City of St. Louis v. Priest
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1941
    ......Funk v. Turner, 42 S.W.2d 594, 328 Mo. 604; Randol v. Garoutti, 78 Mo.App. 609; Knox. County v. Humbolt, 110 Mo. 67; 46 C. J. 1036; 22 R. C. L. 461; State ex rel. v. Hackman, 265 ......
  • State ex rel. St. Louis v. Priest, 37402.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1941
    ......Funk v. Turner, 42 S.W. (2d) 594, 328 Mo. 604; Randol v. Garoutti, 78 Mo. App. 609; Knox County v. Humbolt, 110 Mo. 67; 46 C.J. 1036; 22 R.C.L. 461; State ex rel. v. Hackman, 265 S.W. 532, ......
  • State ex rel. Drainage Dist. No. 8 of Pemiscot County v. Duncan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 3, 1934
    ...constitute a trust fund, the legal title to which is vested in the municipality as trustee for the bondholders. 28 Cyc. 1643; Knox Co. v. Hunolt, 110 Mo. 67; 44 C. J., sec. p. 1233. Drainage districts are the owners of funds collected by taxation for their benefit, and may sue to recover th......
  • Betts v. Comm'rs of the Land Office
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • February 11, 1910
    ...City of Chicago v. People ex rel. Miller, 80 Ill. 384; Jernigan, Treas., v. Finley, Comptroller, 90 Tex. 205, 38 S.W. 24; Knox County v. Hunolt, 110 Mo. 67, 19 S.W. 628. The Legislature has not acted relative to the payment of the expenses of said leasing department, and until such time, un......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • No Holds Barred: The Use of Restrictive Behavioral Intervention in Missouri Public Schools.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 85 No. 4, September 2020
    • September 22, 2020
    ...(116.) Id. at 193 (citing Dritt v. Snodgrass, 66 Mo. 286, 292 (1877)). (117.) Id. (118.) Id. at 191 (citing Knox County. v. Hunolt, 19 S.W. 628, 630 (Mo. (119.) Id. at 191-92. (120.) Id. at 191 (citing McFaul v. Haley, 166 Mo. 56, 65 S.W. 995, 998 (Mo. 1901)). (121.) Id. (122.) Id. at 191-9......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT