State ex rel. Bell v. Grant

• Decision Date: 30 November 1910
• Citation: 132 S.W. 676,231 Mo. 292
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BELL v. GRANT et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

132 S.W. 676

231 Mo. 292

STATE ex rel. BELL v. GRANT et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 1.

November 30, 1910.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Callaway County; Alex. M. Waller, Judge.

Action by the State, on the relation of J. P. Bell, Treasurer of State Hospital No. 1, against E. W. Grant and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Elliott W. Major, Atty. Gen. (North T. Gentry, of counsel), for appellant. Harris & Hay and W. M. Williams, for respondents.

LAMM, P. J.

In March, 1899, the board of managers of State Hospital No. 1 at Fulton amended their by-laws so that the treasurer's term of office was made two years instead of one. Presently, one W. D. Thomas was elected treasurer, gave bond in the penal sum of $30,000 with defendants as sureties, which bond was approved as by statute provided, and took charge of the office of treasurer and the hospital funds, serving out his official term. In 1905 he absconded, a defaulter, and from that to this time has been out on leg bail, a fugitive from justice. Afterwards, in 1905, an examination of his office disclosed that of a series of peculations covering several years; some of them occurred within the life of said bond. Thereat, on August 5, 1905, the state, to the use of Bell, treasurer, sued said sureties to recover $11,151.57, official moneys alleged to have been received and converted by him to his own use during said term, praying judgment of forfeiture in said penal sum and an award of execution for damages, viz., said gross amount of Thomas' malversations. Defendants interposed a defense of the three-year statute of limitations. Prof. Hinton was appointed referee, and (mutatis. mutandis) the evidence heard, the findings of fact and the conclusions of law reported by him, the exceptions to his report, and the ruling below thereon are the same as in State ex rel. Bell v. Yates et al. (just handed down, quod vide) 132 S. W. 672. The state appeals, here as there, from a judgment for defendants. This case is submitted on the same briefs, pleadings, and assignment of error as that. The axioms are: On the same facts, the law is the same and the judgment is the same. It is proper to reason from similars to similars. Hence, on the reasoning and authority of State ex rel. Bell v. Yates et al., supra, the judgment is affirmed. All concur.