State ex rel. Patterson v. Marshall

• Decision Date: 31 October 1884
• Citation: 82 Mo. 484
• Parties: THE STATE ex rel. PATTERSON v. MARSHALL et al., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

82 Mo. 484

THE STATE ex rel. PATTERSON

v.MARSHALL et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1884.

Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court.--HON. J. D. FOSTER, Judge.

REVERSED.

J. J. Russell for appellants.

(1) The writ of mandamus did not lie in this case, because it was an ordinary claim for which no judgment had been rendered and for which if petitioner had a right, he had other legal and adequate remedies. When the county court refused to pay, an appeal was the proper remedy. R. S. §§ 1210, 1216; Mansfield v. Fuller, 50 Mo. 338; Ward v. County Court, 50 Mo. 401. (2) A county court cannot be compelled by mandamus to make an order which involves, and can only be the result of judicial discretion. Strahan v. Audrain County Court, 65 Mo. 644. The statute expressly imposes upon the county courts the exercise of certain judicial functions in paying inquest fees, and after they have done their judicial work, they cannot be compelled by mandamus to review it. R. S. §§ 5157, 5158. The writ might be used for the purpose of compelling a county court to proceed to a judicial duty, but not to dictate what its judgment should be. Miltenberger v. St. Louis County Court, 50 Mo. 172; State ex rel. Metcalf v. Garesche, 65 Mo. 480. In this case the county court had acted and used their judgment and discretion, and this writ cannot be resorted to for the purpose of correcting any error they might have made. State ex rel. School District v. Byers, 67 Mo. 707; State ex rel. v. St. Louis Cir. Ct., 1 Mo. App. 543. (3) The mandatory clause of the writ should expressly and clearly state the precise thing that is required. State ex rel. Jeffries v. Trustees of the Town of Pacific, 61 Mo. 155; State ex rel. McGrath v. Holladay, 65 Mo. 76. The statute has been changed since the decision in Boisliniere v. Board of County Commissioners, 32 Mo. 375.Smith & Krauthoff and R. A. Hatcher, for respondent.

There is nothing in the statute to warrant the county court to revise the action of the coroner or that gives it a discretion in respect to his fees. The coroner is only to present to the court a certified statement of the costs and expenses of the inquest including his own fees, etc., and it is the duty of the county court to allow the same. The county court passes upon the account for no other purpose than to determine whether the specific charges therein are in conformity to the statute and for no other purpose, and this is not disputed in this case. The county court cannot call in question the judicial discretion of the coroner. Boisliniere v. Board of County Commissioners, 32 Mo. 375. Nor has the statute been changed since the decision in the case just cited as contended by appellants. The writ of mandamus was properly resorted to in this case.

EWING, C.

The plaintiff as coroner of Mississippi county, filed his petition for a mandamus to compel the defendants as justices of the county court of Mississippi county to “audit and allow the statement of fees” certified to them by the said coroner.

The petition alleges that on November 7th, 1881, the body of an unknown dead man was found in his county. He issued his warrants. A jury was summoned, and an inquest held. A verdict returned and the fees and expenses certified to the county court. That there being no relative or friend of the deceased, nor any person willing to bury the body, nor any person whose duty it was to attend to such burial, petitioner caused the same to be buried. That the county court “refused either to audit or allow the statement of costs or expenses or any part thereof.”

The respondents, in their return to the alternative writ, admitted that the petitioner was coroner, that a man had died, that the inquest was held and the body buried. But allege “that it did not appear to the court that the coroner either before or during the inquest, had reasonable cause to believe that such body was that of a person who had come to his death by violence or casualty, or that he was unknown and found dead in said county, but that it did appear to said court that said deceased person was well known * * and that there was no reason for believing that he came to his death by violence or casualty, and that, therefore, the county court, * * in the exercise of its legal and judicial discretion, did refuse to pay or draw warrants for fees claimed by petitioner.”

The circuit court, on trial awarded a peremptory writ, from which the defendants appealed to this court.

I. Section 5136, Revised Statutes 1879, directs when coroners shall hold an inquest over a dead body. Section 5150 directs under what circumstances he shall bury the body. Section 5156...