Randolph v. County
| Decision Date | 14 February 1893 |
| Citation | 21 S.W. 592,114 Mo. 142 |
| Parties | Randolph v. Knox County, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Knox Circuit Court. -- Hon. B. E. Turner, Judge.
Affirmed.
C. D Stewart for appellant.
This case falls within the decision of Barnard v. Knox Co., 105 Mo. 382. It is neither denied nor questioned that the required levy under the constitution was made. So any levy to exceed fifty cents on the $ 100 valuation is unconstitutional for any debts except for the erection of public buildings or indebtedness existing prior to November 30, 1875. Black v. McGonigle, 103 Mo. 192; Barnard v. Knox Co., 105 Mo. 382.
F. H McCullough for respondent.
The case of Barnard v. Knox Co., 105 Mo. 382, has no application to the case at bar, for in that case the court held that the warrant there sued on was illegally issued, and hence worthless, while the warrants here sued on are admitted to be legally issued. There can be no foundation for the appellant's position on the question of laches; the only way he can hope to recover on that point is to plead the statute of limitations which is not even hinted at and in fact has not run against the warrants here sued on. Appellant seeks to shift the responsibility for the acts of its officers to the shoulders of respondent. The warrants in this cause were clearly issued in conformity to the meaning of sections 11 and 12 of article 10 of our constitution, and should be paid.
During the years 1884, 1885 and 1886, in payment for services lawfully rendered to Knox county, the county court of said county duly audited and allowed thirteen different accounts against said county, and, in pursuance of its orders warrants on the treasurer of said county in due form of law in all respects were issued, signed by the presiding judge of the county court and countersigned by the county clerk, attested by the seal of the county clerk. They were not paid and were duly protested for non-payment. These several warrants were for value assigned in writing to plaintiff. On the fifteenth of November, 1889, he began this action against the county for the collection of said warrants.
The county after a general denial, made this other defense "Defendant further answering says that for each of said years the county court made a sufficient levy to pay all county officers' salaries, and all other county current expenses for each and every of said years referred to in each and every of said counts in plaintiff's petition; and, if the said pretended warrants were good, valid and legal, there was ample revenue to pay off the same; but plaintiff or his assignors stood back each of said years and waived the right of payment and consented to others taking said revenues on illegal warrants not issued in anticipation of the revenues of each of said years,...
To continue reading
Request your trial