Skinner v. Platte Cnty.

Decision Date31 January 1856
Citation22 Mo. 437
PartiesSKINNER AND OTHERS, Appellants, v. PLATTE COUNTY, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

1. An allowance against a county in favor of an individual, will not bear interest until the warrant has been presented to the county treasurer for payment, and the treasurer's endorsement is obtained that payment was not made for want of funds in the treasury, as required by statute.

Appeal from Platte Circuit Court.

The case sufficiently appears in the opinion of the court.

Vories, for appellant, insisted that the allowance was a judgment, or at least such a settlement of accounts that it bore interest from its date. (R. C. 1845, tit. Interest.)

Gardenhire, for the county.

1. Judgments at common law do not bear interest. (4 McCord, 212.) 2. The allowance is not a judgment within section 3d of the act regulating interest; nor is it a “settlement of accounts” within the 1st section of said act. County warrants bear no interest until they have been presented at the treasury and payment has been refused. (Robins v. Lincoln county, 3 Mo. 42.)

RYLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The question here is, will an allowance against a county in favor of an individual bear interest before the warrant against the county has been presented to the county treasurer for payment, and the treasurer's endorsement thereon, showing that payment was not made because there were no funds in the treasury to pay the demand? We think not. In order to draw interest, the warrant for the allowance must be made out and presented for payment to the treasurer; if he has funds to pay with, he pays the warrant without interest; if he has no funds to pay with, he shall so certify on the back of the warrant, date and subscribe the same.” (R. C. 1845, p. 311, sec. 6.) From this date the warrant will bear interest. Here, the plaintiffs claimed their demand against the county of Platte in 1851; the county court allowed them four hundred dollars; they were dissatisfied with the court for allowing no more, and refused to accept a warrant for the sum thus allowed them. In March, 1855, they moved the county court to grant them a warrant for the said allowance of $400, together with interest thereon from the date of said allowance. This the court refused to do, so far only as respected the interest. The plaintiffs appealed to the Circuit Court; that court sustained the county court, deciding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to interest. The plaintiffs moved for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • White v. Walker
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 31, 1856
  • Isenhour v. Barton County
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1905
    ...failure to pay because of there being no money in the treasury for their payment. [Robbins v. Lincoln County Court, 3 Mo. 57; Skinner v. Platte County, 22 Mo. 437; State rel. v. Trustees, 61 Mo. 155.] Such warrants are merely evidences of indebtedness, non-negotiable, and the Legislature ha......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT