Mississippi Cnty. v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 31 October 1872
• Parties: MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, Defendant in Error, v. GEORGE W JACKSON et al., Plaintiffs in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

51 Mo. 23

MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, Defendant in Error,

v.GEORGE W JACKSON et al., Plaintiffs in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1872.

Error to Mississippi Circuit Court.

Watkins, Ward and Patterson, for plaintiffs in error.

Louis Houck and G. N. Hatcher, for defendant in error.

BLISS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Defendant Jackson was sheriff and tax collector for Mississippi county for the years 1870 and 1871, and the other defendants were sureties upon his bond. The County Court had assessed a tax for the year 1870 called a “jail tax,” for the purpose of building a county jail, and at the settlement of Jackson, in February, 1871, as tax collector, about $2,200 was found to be in his hands as collected upon the jail tax, which amount he has never paid into the county treasury. In October, 1871, the plaintiff filed a motion in the Circuit Court, under section 128 of the then revenue act (Wagn. Stat. 1209), to charge the collector and his sureties, and judgment was rendered against them, which is brought here by error.

The defendants first charge that the motion was insufficient in form, inasmuch as it failed to set out the bond in detail, claiming that such motion should contain all the allegations and exhibits of a petition in an original proceeding. The motion recites that defendant Jackson was collector of the county revenue for the years 1870 and 1871; that he collected the county revenue and stands indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $2,202.65 upon such revenue, called “jail tax,” upon settlement with the County Court, on the 8th of February, 1871, according to law; that the amount so found due has not been paid to the county treasurer; that said defendants, Swank and others, naming them, are sureties upon the collector's bond of said Jackson; that said Jackson and said Swank and others, being the present defendants, and a portion only of the sureties, have been notified of this motion: and after the recitals plaintiffs move for judgment.

The statute does not specify what the motion shall contain, only as must be implied from its character and from the notice required. The notice must inform the collector and his sureties that at the next term of the court a motion will be made for judgment against them for the amount due to the State or county, as the case may be, and for the penalty; and from the character of the motion it is implied that it describe the official character of the collector, the specific collections made by him, and his default, and the fact that those sought to be charged are sureties upon his official bond. It would be well to set out the bond, but the statute does not require it either directly or indirectly, and as this is a purely statutory proceeding, we are not permitted to require the formalities of ordinary pleadings. If we made the requirement, then we must hold part...