State ex rel. Adamson v. Lafayette Cnty. Court

• Decision Date: 31 July 1867
• Citation: 41 Mo. 221
• Parties: STATE ex rel. THOMAS ADAMSON, Petitioner, v. THE LAFAYETTE COUNTY COURT, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

41 Mo. 221

STATE ex rel. THOMAS ADAMSON, Petitioner,

v.THE LAFAYETTE COUNTY COURT, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1867.

Petition for Mandamus.

Chester Harding, Jr., for petitioner.

I. This court is the general guardian of public rights, and, in exercise of its authority to grant the writ, will render it, as far as it can, the suppletory means of substantial justice in every case where there is no other specific legal remedy for a legal right. The right of the court to apply this means for the attainment of such end, and to prevent that defect of legal justice which might otherwise ensue, has been generally admitted--Tapp. on Mand. 9 et seq., and authorities there cited; R. R. Co. v. Comm'rs Clinton Co., 1 Ohio, 77.

In this case there is no specific remedy for the wrong complained of, other than the writ of mandamus. An appeal from the orders of the County Court, in the premises, would not lie--Hixon's case, 41 Mo. 210.

No suit for damages against the individuals who compose the County Court, if such suit could be maintained, would suffice to enforce the petitioner's legal right to the office of the sheriff. Moreover the office is of a public character, in which the people of the county are interested as well as the petitioner.

II. This court has the power to supervise and correct the proceedings of the County Court, notwithstanding the discretionary power confided therein as regards the approval of the collector's bond, provided that the power is shown to have been abused. The discretion spoken of must be a sound legal discretion, and must not be used in an arbitrary, corrupt, or oppressive manner; if otherwise, this court will interfere--Tapp. on Mand. 12-14, & notes; Rex v. Justices of Whiltshire, 10 East, 404; Rex v. Archbishop of Canterbury, 15 East, 136; State ex rel. Epler v. Lewis, 10 Ohio, 128; Gulich v. New, 14 Ind. 93; Marion et al. v. McCall, 5 Geo. 522. For a full elaboration of this point, see People ex rel. &c. v. Superior Court of N. Y., 5 Wend. 114; Pickett's case, 1 Spencer (N. J.) 134; Platte Co. Ct. v. McFarland, 12 Mo. 166.Green and Ryland, for respondents.

It is within the province of a superior court to compel an inferior court to act; but where they have acted upon a matter in which they have a discretion legally submitted to them, their decision, however erroneous, cannot be reviewed on writ of mandamus. And the judgment of no other tribunal can be substituted for theirs--19 Pick. 298; 21 Pick. 259; 10 Pick. 244.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This case comes before us on a demurrer to the petition, and the only question is whether this court has jurisdiction over the proceeding. The relator avers his title to the office of sheriff of Lafayette county, and that he was duly elected, commissioned and qualified, and has acted as such up to the 6th day of June, 1867, when the respondents acting in the capacity as judges of the County Court in said county made an order, which was entered of record in said court, declaring the office of sheriff vacant.

It is further alleged that on the 24th day of May, 1867, the County Court of Lafayette county caused an order to be made stating that the revenue of the county for the year 1867 would be about $85,000, and requiring the relator as sheriff to make a bond with sufficient security in double that sum within ten days from the date thereof; that on the 3d day of June, 1867, within the time specified, he appeared before the said court, then in open session, and produced, exhibited and offered for approval his bond as collector of the revenue, with good and sufficient sureties, in the penal sum of one hundred and seventy thousand dollars and conditioned as required by law; that anticipating unfair and unjust action on the part of the said court, the justices whereof are personally and political hostile to the relator, he took extraordinary pains in procuring sureties, and that thirty-five well known and responsible citizens of Lafayette county, who are owners of real estate situated therein, became his sureties in said bond and as such executed the same, he having first executed it as principal; that the said sureties are owners of real estate in said county of the value of at least three hundred thousand dollars, subject to execution, over and above their debts and liabilities, and that this fact was and is well known to the justices of said County Court; but that, notwithstanding the premises, the said County Court actuated by malice and by a determination to deprive him of his said office, through a corrupt, arbitrary and illegal use of the forms of law, rejected and refused to accept said bond, and also refused to allow the relator to prove the sufficiency and responsibility of his sureties.

The petitioner further states, that on the 6th day of June, 1867, the said County Court, in order to carry out its malicious, arbitrary, corrupt and illegal intention and determination, made and adopted an order declaring the office of sheriff of said county vacant on account of the failure of the petitioner to execute his bond as collector, and ordered a new election; and a mandamus is prayed for to command and require the County Court to accept and approve the said bond, &c.

The respondents demur to the petition on the ground that the County Court...