Self v. Blount County
| Decision Date | 08 February 1900 |
| Parties | SELF ET AL. v. BLOUNT COUNTY. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from chancery court, Blount county; John C. Carmichael Judge.
Bill by Blount county against F. M. Self and others. From a judgment in favor of complainant overruling a demurrer and a motion to dismiss the complaint for want of equity, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
The bill in this case was filed by Blount county against F. M Self, who was a former sheriff of said county, and the sureties on his official bond. The averments of the bill, and the purposes for which it was filed, are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The defendants demurred to the bill upon the following grounds: (1) Because said bill of complaint fails to show with any sufficient certainty the liability of the defendants upon the first bond executed by the said Self as county treasurer. (2) Because said bill of complaint fails to show with any sufficient certainty the liability of the defendants who signed the second bond, and who did not sign the first. (3) Because said bill of complaint fails to show the amount of the liability of the first bond executed by said Self as county treasurer, or the second bond as executed by him as county treasurer of said county. (4) Because said bill of complaint is multifarious, in this: that it seeks to join in the same suit the causes of action arising out of an alleged liability against the said Self as treasurer for his acts as county treasurer in handling the county funds or in wrongfully handling the county funds, with the alleged wrongful act of F. M. Self as county treasurer in his management of the fine and forfeiture fund of the county. (5) Because said bill of complaint fails to allege or show with sufficient certainty any injury that the county has sustained in any mismanagement of the fine and forfeiture fund by the said F. M. Self. (6) Because said bill of complaint fails to allege or show with certainty, or with sufficient certainty how and to whom any injury has been sustained by the alleged mismanagement of the fine and forfeiture fund by the said F M. Self as treasurer. (7) Because said bill of complaint fails to show any wrong committed by the said Self as county treasurer in the management of the fine and forfeiture funds. (8) Because the complainant has no interest in the fine and forfeiture fund of Blount county, and said bill of complaint fails to show that any other person who has an interest in said fund has been injured, or claims to be injured, by the manner in which said fine and forfeiture fund has been managed by the said Self as county treasurer. (9) Because said bill of complaint alleges that the second bond executed by the said F. M. Self as county treasurer was an additional bond, when the allegations in said bill of complaint which precede this allegation show that said second bond is entirely a new obligation, and has no reference to the first bond, except to extinguish the liability of the obligors on the first bond after the execution of the second bond. The defendant also moved to dismiss the bill for the want of equity, and also moved the court to strike certain portions of the bill upon the ground that said averments were irrelevant and immaterial to any issues in the cause. Upon the submission of the cause upon the pleadings to the chancellor, in vacation, upon notice, the chancellor rendered a decree overruling the motion to dismiss the bill for the want of equity, and the demurrers to the bill, and declined to pass upon the motion to strike out certain portions of the bill, assigning as his grounds therefor that such motion could not be heard except on appeal, as provided by rule 35 of chancery practice. From this decree the defendants appeal, and assign the rendition thereof as error.
J. W. Davidson and M. L. Ward, for appellants.
Emery C. Hall and R. T. Robinett, for appellee.
The appeal in this case is taken from the decree of the chancellor overruling respondents' demurrer and motion to dismiss the bill. The cause was set down for hearing before the chancellor on notice in vacation. The notice given was for a hearing on...
To continue reading
Request your trial