Reed v. Howell County

• Decision Date: 20 November 1894
• Citation: 125 Mo. 58,28 S.W. 177
• Parties: REED v. HOWELL COUNTY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

28 S.W. 177

125 Mo. 58

REED v. HOWELL COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

November 20, 1894.

WRONGFUL ATTACHMENT — LIABILITY OF COUNTY.

A county is not liable for damages growing out of its wrongful attachment of property.

Appeal from circuit court, Texas county; C. C. Bland, Judge.

Action by Robert Reed against Howell county for damages for a wrongful attachment. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Jas. Orchard and M. B. Clarke, for appellant. H. D. Green and Olden & Orr, for respondent.

SHERWOOD, J.

Howell county sued Robert Reed, and "wrongfully attached" his property, to wit, 176 head of cattle, valued at $3,500, and garnished a debtor of his who owed him $375 and interest. Owing to the attachment, the cattle greatly depreciated in value during the pending of the suit, and 36 head of them were wholly lost to plaintiff, to his injury in the sum of $1,600. The debtor of plaintiff, solvent when garnished, became insolvent, and died in that condition, whereby plaintiff pocketed a loss of $610. He also expended $512.50 as attorney's fees, and $150 in expenses in attending court, whereby he was damaged in the sum of $2,722.50, for which he asked judgment. These allegations of the petition were admitted on general demurrer to be true, and the trial court held the petition sufficient in law; and, the defendant county declining to plead further, final judgment was entered for plaintiff.

Beginning with Reardon v. St. Louis Co., 36 Mo. 555, it was ruled that the county was not responsible for damages arising from a defective bridge over Gingras river, whereby the husband of the plaintiff lost his life. That case has since been followed in this court. Swineford v. Franklin Co., 73 Mo. 279, where it was held that the county was not liable for filling up a mill race which crossed the county road, thereby virtually destroying the mill of the plaintiff. Two of the judges, however, dissented in that case. In Clark v. Adair Co., 79 Mo. 536, the bridge over which the plaintiff was crossing fell, inflicting injuries on him, his team and wagon. The Reardon Case was followed, holding that counties are only quasi corporations, created by the legislature for certain specific purposes, and that, as such, they are not responsible for neglect of duties enjoined on them or their officers, unless a right of action is given by statute for such neglect. In Hannon v. St. Louis Co., 62 Mo. 313, this principle is recognized, and the...