State ex rel. Buchanan Cnty. v. Smith
Decision Date | 31 January 1858 |
Citation | 26 Mo. 226 |
Parties | THE STATE, TO USE OF BUCHANAN COUNTY, Plaintiff in Error, v. SMITH et al., Defendants in Error. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Where a county collector--who serves two successive terms with two different sets of securities on his official bonds--in making payments during his second term into the county treasury, appropriates and applies such payments, although made out of the revenue of the second term, to the extinguishment of liabilities incurred by him during his first official term, the misappropriation will be binding on the securities in the second bond, if the county treasurer receives the money in good faith.
2. So also where, although the collector makes no appropriation, the treasurer in good faith applies the payments to the extinguishment of the liabilities of the first term.
3. Where the law makes the appropriation in such cases, it will, as between the different sets of securities, appropriate the revenues of each official term to the satisfaction of the liabilities incurred during that term.
4. It will not be presumed, as a matter of law, that all payments made by the collector into the treasury after the second term commences are made on account of the revenue of the second term; he may make payments before he becomes chargeable with any sums received from the revenue of the second term.
5. Settlements made with the county court by the county collector are only prima facie evidence of liability on the part of his securities.
Error to Buchanan Court of Common Pleas.
This was an action upon the official bond of Joseph B. Smith, as collector of Buchanan county, Missouri, for the two years commencing September 1st, 1854, and ending September 1, 1856. The bond was dated August 16, 1854, and contains the condition required by statute in such case. The breaches assigned are that said Smith, as collector, collected of the revenue of said county for the two years following the 1st of September, 1854, $9,367.08 more than he paid into the treasury of the county or otherwise accounted for; that during said two years he collected of the revenue of said county the sum of $28,699.69, and that of this sum he had at various times paid into the county treasury or otherwise legally accounted for various sums, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $19,332.61, and that for the residue--$9,367.08--he has failed to account or pay; that at a special term of the county court held in December, 1855, said Smith made with the court a final settlement for all moneys collected by him on account of the revenue for the year ensuing September 1, 1854; that on said settlement there was found a balance due the county, on account of said revenue, amounting to the sum of $3,182.50, which the said Smith failed to pay or account for; that at a special term of the county court held in December, 1856, said Smith made with said court a final settlement for the revenue of said county for the year ensuing the 1st of September, 1855; that on such settlement there was found to be a balance against said Smith--including the balance, $3,182.50, due on the settlement for the preceding year--of $11,424.05; that of this sum he has paid and accounted for the sum of $2,056.97, and has failed to pay or account for the balance-- $9,367.08.
Smith, the collector, made no defence. The other defendants answered, admitting the execution of the bond sued on, and alleging that they were only the securities of said Smith thereon. They negatived the first and second breaches; they admitted that Smith made the settlements alleged, but denied that the settlements were conclusive and binding upon them, alleging that they were in fraud of their rights, as securities; that said Smith had been collector for the two years immediately preceding September 1, 1854, with a different set of securities upon his first official bond; that at the close of his first term he was in default in a large amount; that a large amount of money collected from the revenues of the two years of the second term were paid into the treasury and applied fraudulently as against these defendants to the extinguishment of the liabilities of the collector and securities upon the first official bond.
At the trial the plaintiff gave in evidence the settlements made by Smith as collector in December, 1855, and in December, 1856, and rested.
Evidence was then introduced by defendants showing various payments into the county treasury, made by Smith as collector, after September 1st, 1854, and which were not embraced in the settlements for the years 1854 and 1855. The plaintiff objected to the introduction of this evidence on the ground that there was no evidence tending to prove that they were made out of moneys accruing and collected on the revenue arising after the 1st of September, 1854. The objection was overruled.
The court gave the following instructions at the instance of the defendants:
The court refused the following instructions asked by plaintiff: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Northern Trust Company a Corporation v. First National Bank of Buffalo, a Corporation
... ... pp. 235, 236 ... Where ... state officers fail to perform their duties in requiring ... C ... 853; State v. Sooy, 39 N.J.L. 539; Com. ex rel ... Mechanicsburg v. Knettle, 182 Pa. 176, 38 A. 13; ... Co. 9 Biss. 421, 2 ... F. 535; State use of Buchanan v. Smith, 26 Mo. 226, ... 72 Am. Dec. 204; American ... ...
-
Henry County v. Salmon
...apply as against the different sets of sureties on successive bonds of public officers. State ex rel. v. Collector, 8 Mo. 395; State ex rel. v. Smith, 26 Mo. 226; State rel. v. Alsup, 91 Mo. 172; U.S. v. January, 7 Cranch 572; U.S. v. Eckford Exrs., 1 How. 263; Mechem on Public Officers (18......
-
State ex rel. Dunklin County v. Blakemore
...of the particular money paid over by Blakemore enough did not belong to the school fund to discharge his obligations to that fund. State v. Smith, 26 Mo. 266; 37 Cyc. Pratt's Appeal, 41 Conn. 191; Speck v. Comm., 3 Watts (Pa.), 324; Sandwich v. Fish, 2 Gray (Mass.), 298; Grafton v. Reed, 34......
-
State v. O'Neill
... ... 551; Shaeffer v. Bernero, 11 ... Mo.App. 562; State ex rel. v. Lidwell, 11 Mo.App ... 567; State ex rel. v. Minor, 44 Mo. 373, 376 ... 44 Mo. 373; Draffen v. City, 8 Mo. 395; State ex ... rel. v. Smith, 26 Mo. 226; State ex rel. v ... McCormick, 50 Mo. 568; State ex rel. v ... ...