M'Connell v. Wall
| Decision Date | 04 February 1887 |
| Citation | 3 S.W. 287 |
| Parties | McCONNELL <I>v.</I> WALL. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Nunn & Denny, for appellant. Maxcy & Maxcy and W. B. Wall, for appellee.
This action was brought by the appellant, as county treasurer of Houston county, against W. B. Wall, county judge of that county, to recover money which he alleged belonged to the county, and was by the defendant unlawfully detained. It appears that Houston county found it necessary to issue and sell bonds to raise money to erect a court-house and jail in place of like buildings destroyed by fire. The county sold $20,000 of bonds for this purpose, but the bonds were not delivered at the time some of the parties contracted for them, and the money was not paid until the bonds were delivered, though they were made to bear interest before the date of the delivery. The proceeds of all the bonds, except some amounting to some $2,500 were paid to the appellant before the institution of this suit. Bonds for $5,000 were sold to the Houston county bank, under an agreement between the bank and the commissioners' court that they should be paid for as the money was needed in the erection of the court-house and jail. These bonds were sold at par, and one-half of their proceeds was paid to the appellant before this suit was instituted, but the residue was afterwards paid.
The county commissioners' court has control of the financial affairs of a county, and, if it makes contracts through which money does not become due to it so soon as it ought, the county treasurer cannot correct its mistakes or bad management, by an action against a county judge, to whom the commissioners' court has confided the duty of consummating an authorized contract, to compel such an official to pay over to him money not received, and which under the contract the county was not then entitled to receive. The appellee was acting under the instructions of the county commissioners' court in selling the bonds to the bank, and paid to the treasurer, before this action was instituted, all the money received under the contract, or which, under the contract, the county was entitled to receive before that time. It is made the duty of county treasurers "to direct prosecutions according to law for the recovery of all debts that may be due his county, and superintend the collection thereof." (Rev. St. art. 995;) but it would seem that all such suits should be brought in the name of the county, (Rev. St. art. 1200.)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kootenai County v. Hope Lumber Co.
... ... 270, 3 P. 383; Cedar Co. v ... Sager, 90 Iowa 11, 57 N.W. 634; Board of ... Commissioners v. Young, 3 Wyo. 684, 29 P. 1002; McConnel ... v. Wall, 67 Tex. 323, 3 S.W. 287.) ... Payment ... of costs in this case by the county commissioners was not a ... compromise or settlement of ... ...
-
Chapman v. Tyler County
...any of the counties or incorporated cities, towns or villages shall be by or against it in its corporate name." See McConnell v. Wall, 67 Tex. 323, 3 S. W. 287; Smith v. Mosley, 74 Tex. 631, 12 S. W. Appellants' second proposition is as follows: "A petition to establish a claim as a general......
-
Chapman v. Eastland County
...being the owner of the funds, this suit is properly maintainable in its corporate name. Article 1835, Rev. Civ. Stat.; McConnell v. Wall, 67 Tex. 325, 3 S. W. 287. The sixth is that the county cannot maintain this suit for the school funds because appellant says such funds were funds belong......