Matthis v. Inhabitants of the Town of Cameron

Decision Date31 May 1876
PartiesSAMUEL MATTHIS, Plaintiff in Error, v. INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF CAMERON, et al., Defendants in Error.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Error to Clinton Circuit Court.

J. F. Harwood, for Plaintiff in Error.

I. Town warrants are not negotiable. (Clark vs. City of Des Moines, 19 Iowa, 199.)

II. A tax payer may maintain a bill in equity for relief against a fraudulent judgment. (Dill. Mun. Corp., 1st ed., §§ 734, 736.)

III. The failure of the officers of the town to answer and defend, when the corporation was sued, was a fraud on the tax payers.

S. H. Corn, for Defendants in Error.

I. The petition charged no fraud upon the defendant Cox, and no collusion on his part in obtaining the judgment.

NAPTON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an application at the April Term, 1875, of the circuit court of Clinton county, for an injunction against the corporation called “The Inhabitants of the Town of Cameron,” the trustees by name, the treasurer, and one John D. Cox. The plaintiff is a resident citizen and tax payer of said town; and the grounds, upon which he prays an injunction, as stated in the petition, are substantially as follows:

On the 3d day of July, 1871, the board of trustees, of whom B. C. Stokes was chairman, issued a warrant or order as follows:

“No. 12. The treasurer of the town of Cameron will on the 1st day of January, 1872, pay to the order of Isaac Merchant the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated. Given at the clerk's office, this 3d day of July, 1871. B. C. Stokes, chairman. Countersigned, J. E. Goldsworthy, clerk.” On the back of this warrant were indorsed the names W. V. McCandless, Isaac Merchant.”

Without any authority by law, the board gave this warrant to the payee therein, to aid said payee and others in surveying and locating a certain railroad, which was never built.

This warrant afterwards came into the possession of the defendant, Cox, who, on the 6th of April, 1872, commenced suit on the same against “The Inhabitants of the Town of Cameron.” The process was served on Stokes, the then chairman of the board. The said Stokes (the petition alleges), “for the purpose of allowing the plaintiff to obtain a judgment, and in disregard of his official duties as trustee, etc., failed, neglected and refused to inform the board of trustees, that any such suit had been instituted, but allowed such suit to proceed to judgment without any defense.”

Judgment by default was rendered, and the final judgment is as follows: “Come now the parties in the above entitled cause, etc., and the plaintiff says he will no further prosecute this suit against the administrator of W. V. McCandless, but voluntarily dismisses the same, and this cause coming on to be heard, etc., the court, after hearing the evidence, etc., finds that the said defendants, The Inhabitants of the Town of Cameron, and Isaac Merchant, are indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $263.79. It is therefore considered, etc.”

The board of trustees, on the 16th of November, 1874, caused to be issued to Silas H. Corn, attorney of said defendant Cox, a certain warrant or order on the treasury of said town of Cameron, for the amount of this judgment, which warrant is still held by said Corn, and said Cox, through his attorney, is still endeavoring to collect said warrant from the treasurer, and has succeeded in getting $12.47 of the amount, and, unless restrained, he will get the remainder.

The last warrant referred to is this: “No. 87. The treasurer of the town of Cameron will pay to the order of S. H. Corn, attorney of J. D. Cox, the sum of $313.06 out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated. Given at the clerk's office, 16th of November, 1874;” and on the back of this is indorsed, “Paid on the within, February 15th, 1875, $12.47. H. S. Burr, Treas.”

Both these warrants are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • Hight v. City of Harrisonville
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 29, 1931
    ...as citizens, taxpayers and users of electric current are entitled to maintain this action. Rutherford v. Taylor, 38 Mo. 315; Matthis v. Town of Cameron. 62 Mo. 504; Carson v. Sullivan, 284 Mo. 353; Castilo v. State Highway Comm., 279 S.W. 673; Civic League v. St. Louis, 223 S.W. 891; Bell v......
  • Graves v. Purcell
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 30, 1935
    ...of the court, no other adequate remedy is available. [State ex rel. v. Saline County, 51 Mo. 350; Rubey v. Shain, 54 Mo. 207; Matthis v. Town of Cameron, 62 Mo. 504; Ranney v. Bader, 67 Mo. 476; Ewing v. Board Education, 72 Mo. 436, l. c. 440; State ex rel. v. Hughes, 104 Mo. 459, l. c. 471......
  • The State ex rel. McCaffery v. Aloe
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 5, 1899
    ... ... Newmeyer v. Railroad, 52 Mo. 81; Matthews v ... Cameron, 62 Mo. 504; Lynch v. Murphy, 119 Mo ... 163; State ex rel. v. Mead, ... over 100,000 inhabitants and prescribing their duties, and ... the several amendments to that act, ... ...
  • Hight v. City of Harrisonville
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 29, 1931
    ... ... 1004; ... Shelton v. Los Angeles, 275 P. 421; Searle v ... Town of Haxtun, 271 P. 629; Miller v. City of ... Buhl, 284 P. 843; Saleno ... Rutherford ... v. Taylor, 38 Mo. 315; Matthis v. Town of ... Cameron, 62 Mo. 504; Carson v. Sullivan, 284 ... Mo ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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