State ex rel. Lane v. Craig
| Decision Date | 30 April 1879 |
| Parties | THE STATE ex rel. LANE v. CRAIG, County Treasurer. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sullivan Circuit Court.--HON. G. D. BURGESS, Judge.
This was an information against Craig, as treasurer of Sullivan County, to compel him to pay certain interest coupons of bonds issued by the county to the St. Joseph & Iowa R. R. Co. The information alleged that the relator had presented the coupons to the respondent at their maturity and demanded payment, but the respondent had refused payment, although he had in his hands more than sufficient funds collected by taxation for the purpose of paying coupons of that class. An alternative writ was issued, to which respondent made return setting up the following among other defenses: 1. That relator had a remedy at law on his coupons against the county, and on the treasurer's bond. 2. That the application was based on written or printed promissory obligations of the county, which had not been filed in the case. 3. That the coupons were general obligations of the county, payable out of no particular fund, and as treasurer he has no right or power to pay them, except on a warrant regularly drawn by order of the county court. 4. That the bonds from which the coupons were detached were then in litigation before the supreme court of the state, in which their validity was being tested; and that the county court was by law vested with the exclusive control of all funds which could be applied to the payment of said coupons, as against respondent. 5. That long before this writ was sued out, and before the application therefor was made, though after demand of payment was made, the county court of Sullivan county, being then in session and having exclusive control of the funds, drew its warrant on respondent as treasurer for the whole amount in his hands belonging to the railroad interest fund, and placed said funds on deposit with the Farmer's Loan and Trust Company, in the city of New York, where the same still remains for the payment of interest on the bonds mentioned in the petition; and that since said date he has had no funds in his hands to pay said coupons.
To this return the relator demurred generally; and the demurrer being sustained, after a trial upon the issues of fact presented by the other defenses and a finding in favor of the relator, a peremptory writ was awarded, and the respondent took this appeal.
Waters & Winslow for appellant.
The treasurer cannot pay these coupons without a warrant; he has no power to audit a claim against the county, Wag. Stat. 410, §§ 7, 28. Mandamus will not lie against him in the first instance. State v. Bishop, 42 Mo. 504; State v. Mount, 21 La. Ann. 352; 2 Dan. Neg. Instruments, 424 et seq.; nor after the money is withdrawn from the county treasury. Moses on Mandamus 99; State v. Treasurer Callaway Co., 43 Mo. 228; State v. Hays, 49 Mo. 604; State v. Lynch, 8 Ohio St. 348; State v. Waterman, 5 Nev. 323. Relator's remedy is a judgment against the county followed by mandamus to enforce it. State v. Pacific, 61 Mo. 155; State v. Howard Co. Ct., 39 Mo. 375.
L. T. Hatfield and Charles L. Dobson for relator.
The remedy upon the treasurer's bond is in adequate, and mandamus is the proper remedy. High on Ex. Leg. Rem., §§ 35, 351, 356; Apgar v. Trustees, 5 Vroom 308; State v. Treasurer of Callaway Co., 43 Mo. 228; Commonwealth v. Johnson, 2 Binn. 275; Moses on Mandamus, 108, 109, 112. An action against the county was unnecessary, there being a fund provided. High Ex. Leg. Rem., § 357. The coupons did not need to be filed. The proceeding is not a suit upon them. The object is to obtain a command to the treasurer to pay them when presented, not to obtain a judgment on them. He does not pay the judgment, but he pays the coupon. If it was necessary to file them in court, the relator could not withdraw them, and present them to and leave them with the treasurer, when paid. The treasurer is entitled to the coupons themselves, as his vouchers; and he could not be required to pay, except upon their presentation to him. The coupons are not “general obligations” of the county, in the sense that the treasurer may pay them out of any fund of the county. They are payable out of a particular fund--the “railroad interest fund.” Wag Stat., 305, §§ 18, 21. It was unnecessary for the county court to order the drawing of a new warrant. The coupon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Rothrum v. Darby, 36099.
...applicable funds have been illegally diverted to some other use after demand for payment. [See note 98 A.L.R. 457, and State ex rel. Lane v. Craig, 69 Mo. 565.] At the beginning of the trial, respondents put on evidence of the financial condition of the city. This showed that delinquent tax......
-
State ex rel. Drainage Dist. No. 8 of Pemiscot County v. Duncan
...ex rel. v. Johnson, 234 Mo. 338. It lies against the county treasurer to pay interest coupons if he has the funds on hand. State ex rel. Lane v. Craig, 69 Mo. 565; State ex rel. v. Drainage Dist., 49 S.W.2d 121. Not only is the county treasurer a ministerial officer in paying these bonds an......
-
State ex rel. Sturdivant Bank v. Little River Drainage Dist.
... ... 532; Hook v ... German-American Bank, 136 N.Y.S. 1019; Pittsburgh, ... etc., Ry. Co. v. Schmuck, 103 N.E. 325; State ex ... rel. Lane v. Craig, 69 Mo. 565. (4) A mandamus ... proceeding cannot be converted into an equitable action by ... respondents return which seeks to invoke ... ...
-
Bank of Chatsworth v. Hagedorn Const. Co.
... ... Where ... thereafter the state highway department turned over to the ... county the sum of $29,000 ... available to pay the same. State ex rel. Williams v ... Hiers, 51 S.C. 388, 29 S.E. 89; State ex rel Bryson ... Pouder v. Tate, 132 Ind. 327, 30 N.E. 880; State ... v. Craig, 69 Mo. 565; First Nat Bk. v. Arthur, ... 12 Colo. App. 90, 54 P ... ...