State ex rel. Carroll Cnty. v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 31 May 1875
• Citation: 60 Mo. 402
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, TO USE OF CARROLL COUNTY, Plaintiff in Error, v. JAMES M. ROBERTS, et al., Defendants in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

60 Mo. 402

STATE OF MISSOURI, TO USE OF CARROLL COUNTY, Plaintiff in Error,

v.JAMES M. ROBERTS, et al., Defendants in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May Term, 1875.

Error to Carroll Circuit Court.

L. K. Kinsey, for Plaintiff in Error, relied upon Marion County vs. Phillips, 45 Mo., 75.

Hale & Eads, and L. M. Waters, and J. L. Mirick, for Defendants in Error.

I. The final settlement, made by the County Court with the collector, is equivalent to a judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, and will only be impeached upon a proceeding in the nature of a bill in equity for fraud or mistake. (Sullivan Co. vs. Burgess, 37 Mo., 300.) It cannot be done in a suit on the collector's bond. (Jones vs. Brinker, 20 Mo., 87; State to use, etc., vs. Roland, 23 Mo., 93; Marion County vs. Phillips, 45 Mo., 75.)

II. When a settlement has been regularly made and approved, it cannot be impeached after the term of court, at which it was made, has lapsed, except in a proper case and by a regular judgment. (Owens vs. Andrew County Court, 49 Mo., 372.)

NAPTON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The suit was against Roberts, the sheriff and ex-officio collector of Carroll Co., and his sureties on his official bond.

It is averred, in the petition, that a final settlement was made by the County Court of Carroll county with Roberts as collector, in February, 1871, and that, in this settlement, Roberts was credited with $435.23, the amount of taxes due on delinquent lands; that, in fact, these delinquent taxes were paid, and that the alleged delinquents have receipts for the same. In other words it is alleged that the collector received a credit, in this settlement, to which he was not entitled; that this credit was the result of fraud or mistake, and a judgment is therefore asked against him and his sureties.

The answer sets up the final settlement, made by the collector with the County Court, as a bar. To this answer there was a demurrer, which was overruled, and the only question presented by the record is whether this final settlement is a bar to this action.

In regard to settlements by administrators, guardians, curators, &c., the decisions of this court have been uniform, that the action of the County and Probate Courts, in such settlements, is judicial in its character, and therefore a final settlement with the court is conclusive so long as it stands; and it can be set aside only by a proceeding in the Circuit Court, on the ground of fraud or mistake. (State vs. Rowland, 23 Mo., 98, and cases there referred to.)

A distinction was, however, made in the cases of Marion County vs. Phillips, (45 Mo., 79,) and Owens vs. Andrew Co., (49 Mo., 372,) which we think a sound one. Settlements made with the County Court in regard to administrators, guardians,...