St. Louis Cnty. Court v. Ruland

• Decision Date: 30 June 1838
• Parties: ST. LOUIS COUNTY COURT v. JOHN RULAND.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

5 Mo. 268

ST. LOUIS COUNTY COURT

v.JOHN RULAND.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June Term, 1838.

H. S. GEYER, for Plaintiff in Error. 1. That the Circuit Court is not empowered to order the payment of any money out of the county treasury, especially at a criminal term. 2. That the account allowed by the Circuit Court is not chargeable upon the county treasury. 3. That the Circuit Court has power only to ascertain and settle the reasonableness of the sums charged; and the County Court has the exclusive original jurisdiction to determine the liability of the county for the demand. 4. The superintending control of the Circuit Court over the County Court, is to be exercised by appeal on writ of error, not by mandamus. Authorities cited are, Rev. Code, 1835; 12 Johns. R.; Dallas; 3 Term R.; Maule & S.; 1 Wharton's Digest.

J. SPALDING, for Defendant in Error. 1. This amount was rightfully allowed by the Circuit Court. Rev. Code, 112-13, §§ 14, 17; 3 Mo. R. 140, The County of Boone v. Todd; Rev. Code, p. 147, § 2; as to county buildings, Rev. Code, p. 152; Old Rev. Code, p. 208, § 5, p. 261, § 1.

MCGIRK, J.

On the 10th day of May, 1838, John Ruland, clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Louis county, filed in the Circuit Court of said county, an account for fuel for the office, in substance as follows:

St. Louis County, due to John Ruland, clerk of the Circuit Court.

1836.

To amt. paid for 9 cords wood, hauling and sawing the same for use of the office

$60 00

1837.

Amt. paid for 235 bushels coal, from October, 1836, to April 1837, at 25 cts. per bushel

58 75

$118 75

For one cord of wood

16 00

$134 75

To which is an affidavit of Julius D. Johnston, which stated that no regular account of the items had been kept, but that the affiant thinks, and is sure, the quantities of wood and coal charged, are less than the quantities actually used. The Circuit Court made the allowance which was ordered to be certified to the County Court for payment. That the same was presented to the County Court of St. Louis county for a warrant to be issued to the county treasurer for the amount; which warrant the court refused to issue. Afterwards, Ruland applied to the Circuit Court for a mandamus on the County Court to compel that court to issue the warrant. The Circuit Court issued a conditional mandamus, to which the County Court returned, that the reason why they did not issue the warrant was, that they knew of no law to authorize them to do the same. The Circuit Court then issued a peremptory mandamus to that court to issue said warrant, from which order the County Court appealed to this court. To prove that the clerk is entitled to the allowance for fuel, Mr. Spalding, of counsel for Ruland, has cited and relied on the Revised Code, 112, 113, §§ 14, 17, and the case of Todd v. The County of Boone, 3 Mo. R. 140; Rev. Code, 147, § --, p. 112. The law declares that each clerk shall preserve the seal and other property belonging to his office, and shall provide and preserve suitable books, stationery, furniture and other necessaries for the office, and keep correct accounts thereof, and each court shall settle such accounts, and allow such sums as shall be reasonable. All such allowances made to the clerk of the Supreme Court shall be paid by the State and those made to other clerks, shall be paid by the county.

To prove that the amount cannot be allowed by the County Court, or rather, that they ought not to issue their warrant on the county treasurer for the amount allowed by the Circuit Court, Mr. Geyer cites and relies on the Revised Code, p. 157, which says the County Court shall have power to audit and settle all demands against the county. In page 152, the act establishing a county treasury, requires the treasurer only to pay county moneys on the warrant of the County Court. Mr. Geyer insists for the county, that it is exclusively the privilege and duty of the County Court to audit and allow all demands against the county, and that the Circuit Court can only certify to them that the allowance is reasonable, and what the items were. Then the County Court must judge the matter on its original authority, and determine whether or not the allowance is founded on items provided for by law.

The first question to be considered is, whether fuel for the office is to be included under the word necessaries, mentioned in the 13th section of the act respecting clerks. Rev. Code, 112-13. The section declares each clerk shall preserve the seal and other property belonging to his office; and provide and preserve suitable books, stationery, furniture, and other necessaries for the office. There can be no doubt as to theitems expressly mentioned, to-wit: books, stationery and furniture; but what is meant by the words other necessaries? It has already been decided that a house to keep these books, stationery and furniture is an absolute and indispensable...