State ex rel. Jackson County Library Dist. v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 08 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 51600,51600 |
| Citation | 396 S.W.2d 623 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri ex rel. JACKSON COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT, Respondent, v. Harry L. TAYLOR, County Treasurer, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Thomas E. Deacy, Jr., Joseph A. Sherman, Deacy & Deacy, Kansas City, for respondent.
John E. Kelley, County Counselor, William D. Cosgrove, Asst. County Counselor, for appellant.
Thomas F. Eagelton, Atty. Gen., amicus curiae, C. B. Burns, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for amicus curiae.
This is a mandamus proceeding instituted in the Circuit Court of Jackson County to compel appellant to honor and pay a warrant drawn by respondent on its funds in the hands of appellant. We will refer to the parties as follows: relator, Jackson County Library District, respondent on appeal, as the Library District; respondent, Harry L. Taylor, the Treasurer of Jackson County, appellant on appeal, as the Treasurer.
By this proceeding the Library District seeks to compel the Treasurer to honor warrant number 23,744, dated May 13, 1964 for $100,000, payable to the First National Bank of Independence, Missouri, drawn by the Library District on the County Library Fund deposited with the Treasurer. The case was submitted to the trial court on the pleadings. Judgment was for the Library District and the peremptory writ of mandamus issued. Civil Rules 94.01 et seq., and Sec. 529.010 et seq. 1 From this judgment, the Treasurer appealed to the Kansas City Court of Appeals. That court permitted the Attorney General of Missouri to file a brief as amicus curiae. The court of appeals reversed the judgment. The Library District's motion for a rehearing in that court or, in the alternative, to transfer to this court, was overruled. On application of the Library District, we ordered that the case be transferred to this court.
The petition of the Library District alleges: (1) that it is a body corporate organized pursuant to Sec. 182.010 with power to sue and be sued; (2) that the Treasurer is the duly elected and acting Treasurer of Jackson County; (3) that there is, and was at all times material, funds on deposit in the County Library Fund in the hands of the Treasurer sufficient to pay this warrant; (4) that the warrant, in proper form as required by law, was issued and properly authenticated by action of the board of trustees of the Library District; (5) that the warrant was presented to the Treasurer for payment and payment refused; (6) that the Library District is entitled to have funds from the County Library Fund disbursed upon presentation of its properly authenticated warrant to the Treasurer; (7) that the Treasurer's duty to disburse funds from the County Library Fund upon presentation of the warrant is ministerial, not discretionary, and that his refusal to honor any pay the same was improper, illegal and invalid.
The return of the Treasurer to the alternative writ of mandamus admits the issuance of the warrant, its presentment for payment and his refusal to honor and pay it. The return further alleges that in March, 1964, the Library District adopted a resolution authorizing the investment of $461,000 of its funds in the First National Bank of Independence; that the Library District drew a warrant for that amount upon its funds which he refused to pay because the law (1) required that all funds of the Library District be deposited in the county treasury and (2) did not authorize the board of trustees of the Library District 'to invest surplus or operating funds in interest bearing investments for the benefit of the County Library Fund.' The return further alleges 'that he is forbidden by law to pay [this] warrant unless it clearly appears that the proceeds thereof shall be used for normal operating expenses and not for the investment in interest bearing securities'; that the petition for the writ does not allege (1) that this money is not to be invested in such securities, and (2) that it is to be used for operating expenses; that he has honored and paid other warrants for normal operating expenses; but that $100,000, 'would be an unusual operating expense.'
To this return the Library District directed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. For the purpose of considering the motion, all averments of fact sufficiently well pleaded in the return will be taken as admitted, eliminating conclusions of law and matters not well pleaded the truth of which this motion does not admit. State ex rel. Wheeler v. Adams, 161 Mo. 349, 61 S.W. 894; State ex rel. Drainage District No. 8 of Pemiscot County v. Duncan, 334 Mo. 733, 68 S.W.2d 679, 681[1, 2]; Ingle v. City of Fulton, Mo.App., 268 S.W.2d 600, 603. Thus, we eliminate from consideration the conclusion of the return that the Treasurer, for the reasons alleged therein,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Madison Block Pharmacy, Inc. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co.
...admits, for purposes of the motion, the truth of all well pleaded facts in the opposing party's pleadings. State ex rel. Jackson County Library District v. Taylor, 396 S.W.2d 623, 624 (Mo. banc 1965); Ingle v. City of Fulton, 268 S.W.2d 600, 603 (Mo.App.1954); Cantor v. Union Mutual Life In......
-
Robert Williams & Co., Inc. v. State Tax Commission of Missouri
...issues into the case and the court will not pass on contentions urged by an amicus curiae but not presented by the parties. State v. Taylor, 396 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Mo. Banc 1965); Gem Stores, Inc. v. O'Brien, 374 S.W.2d 109, 118 (Mo. banc The judgments are affirmed. HENLEY, P.J., DONNELLY, C.......
-
Fruin-Colnon Corp. v. Missouri Highway and Transp. Com'n
...v. Story, 642 S.W.2d 394, 395 (Mo.App.1982). The validity of conclusions of law, however, is not admitted. State ex rel. Jackson County Library District v. Taylor, 396 S.W.2d 623, 624 (Mo. banc 1965); Holt v. Story, 642 S.W.2d at On December 18, 1963, Missouri and Illinois, through respecti......
-
Additional Magistrates for St. Louis County, Matter of
...acts only as a friend of the court and not as a party. See Kansas City v. Kindle, 446 S.W.2d 807 (Mo.1969); State ex rel. Jackson County Library Dist. v. Taylor, 396 S.W.2d 623, 626 (Mo.banc 1965). However, respondents' own cases state that an amicus is allowed no control over the litigatio......