Ray Cnty. v. Barr
Decision Date | 31 August 1874 |
Citation | 57 Mo. 290 |
Parties | RAY COUNTY Plaintiff in Error, v. ADAM BARR, Defendant in Error. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Ray County Common Pleas.
James L. Farris & J. W. and J. E. Black, for Plaintiff in Error.
This was a proceeding originally instituted in the Ray County Court against the defendant who was formerly the clerk of the Circuit Court for that county.
The object of the proceeding was to recover from the defendant certain fines, forfeitures and costs which it was alleged he collected while he was in office and did not account for.
Without any notice to the defendant, the County Court proceeded to adjust the amount and rendered judgment for the same.
The defendant appeared at a subsequent term and moved to set aside the judgment, and dismiss the proceedings for various reasons; but the court overruled his motion, and he appealed to the Circuit Court.
The case was then transferred to the Court of Common Pleas for trial; and upon the hearing, a part of the defendant's answer was regarded by all parties as a demurrer, and the same was sustained. From that decision plaintiff appealed.
The substance of the demurrer was: 1st--that the County Court had no jurisdiction of the cause; 2nd--that the defendant was not clerk of the Circuit Court for the county at the time of instituting the proceedings; and 3rd--that the defendant had no notice of the proceedings prior to the adjustment made by the County Court.
This proceeding was had under the statute (, in reference to county treasurers. .
The 19th section provides, that all collectors, sheriffs, marshals, clerks, constables, and other persons, chargeable with money belonging to any county, shall render their accounts to, and settle with, the County Court at each stated term thereof, paying to the county treasury any balance which may be due the county, take duplicate receipts therefor, and deposit one of the same with the clerk of the County Court, within five days thereafter.
The 20th section declares, that if any person thus chargeable, shall neglect or refuse to render true accounts, or settle as aforesaid, the court shall adjust the account of such delinquent, according to the best information they can obtain, and ascertain the balance due the county. The subsequent sections relate to the power of the court to impose penalties on the defaulting officer.
The main question is, whether the court can proceed in this summary manner against a person...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burden v. Taylor
... ... which he had no notice. George v. Meddough, 62 Mo ... 549; Dunbar v. Weightman, 51 Mo. 432; Ray Co. v ... Barr, 57 Mo. 290; Clarmorgan v. O'Fallen, ... 10 Mo. 112; McKee v. Logan, 82 Mo. 528; Lyster ... v. Browne, 13 Iowa 461; Delaplaine v. Hitchcock, 6 ... ...
-
McKenzie v. Donnell
...McCoy v. Zane, 65 Mo. 11; Cragin v. Railroad, 71 Ill. 180. (7) That the statute intended that notice should be given is implied. Ray Co. v. Barr, 57 Mo. 290; State ex rel. v. St. Louis, 1 Mo.App. 503; v. Railroad, 81 Mo. 135; Durvessetts v. Hale, 38 Mo. 346. (8) When a court of limited juri......
-
Calhoun v. Gray
... ... 374; ... State to use v. Grace's Admr., 26 Mo. 87. The ... law implies necessity of notice to surety. Ray County v ... Barr, 57 Mo. 290 ... ... [131 S.W. 479] ... [150 ... Mo.App. 594] NORTONI, J ... This is ... ...
-
Cole County v. Dallmeyer
...estate of said Schmidt or the executrix thereof, or any one for them, was present when any such pretended settlement was made. Ray County v. Barr, 57 Mo. 290. (9) The court erred in permitting parol evidence to and contradict the records of the county court. Jackson County v. Wood, 84 Mo. 4......