State ex rel. Doniphan State Bank v. Harris

• Decision Date: 21 April 1915
• Docket Number: No. 18040.,18040.
• Citation: 176 S.W. 9
• Parties: STATE ex rel. DONIPHAN STATE BANK v. HARRIS et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

176 S.W. 9

STATE ex rel. DONIPHAN STATE BANK v. HARRIS et al.

No. 18040.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

April 21, 1915.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ripley County; J. P. Foard, Judge.

Petition for mandamus, on the' relation of the Doniphan State Bank, against Lafranier Harris and others. Judgment for defendants, and relator appeals. Affirmed,

Sheppard & Green, of Poplar Bluff, and C. B. Butler, of Doniphan, for appellant. C. O. Borth, of Doniphan, and Abington & Phillips, of Poplar Bluff, for respondents.

BLAIR, J.

This is a proceeding by mandamus, instituted in the circuit court of Ripley county, to compel the county court of that county to select relator as the county depositary. There was judgment for respondents, and relator appealed.

There was much evidence pro and con, but a brief statement is sufficient to disclose a ground upon which the judgment must be affirmed. The county court advertised for bids for the county, school, and drainage district moneys, and three bidders responded, relator, the respondent bank, and the Bank of Naylor. The latter is not a party to this proceeding. The Ripley County Bank, respondent here, bid 2.5 per cent. per annum on the county and public school funds and bid 3 per cent. on the drainage ditch funds, and, in addition, offered to act as fiscal agent for the county, free of charge, and maintain county warrants (then at discount) at par. The Bank of Naylor bid 6.01 per cent. per annum on the drainage ditch funds and 5.85 per cent. per annum on the county and public school funds. Relator bid 6.126 per cent, per annum on the county funds, including the public school funds, and bid 5.8 per cent. per annum on the drainage ditch funds.

Relator has no right to maintain this proceeding simply in its capacity as an unsuccessful bidder (Anderson et al. v. Public Schools, 122 Mo. 61, 27 S. W. 613, 26 L. R. A. 707; State en rel. v. McGrath, 91 Mo. 386, 3 S. W. 846), but must maintain it, at all, in its role as a taxpayer in Ripley county. In that capacity it represents the public, and it is the interest of the public which Is to be considered, not that of relator as a bidder for the funds.

In selecting the county depositary, the statute authorizes the county court to "reject any and all bids," thus vesting that tribunal with a discretion (Reagan v. County Court, 226 Mo. 79, 125 S. W. 1140) which is not subject to control or revision by mandamus without gravest reason.

In case it clearly appears that in dealing with a matter committed to his discretion an officer has acted so arbitrarily or with such manifest injustice that it is tantamount to no exercise of the discretion vested in him, mandamus will lie to correct the abuse, if it is otherwise a proper remedy. State ex rel. v. Jones, 155 Mo. loc. cit. 576, 56 S. W. 307.

In mandamus proceedings there is always a discretion vested in the court which is called upon to determine whether the peremptory writ shall go (...