State ex rel. Scotland County v. Ewing

Citation22 S.W. 476,116 Mo. 129
PartiesSTATE ex rel. SCOTLAND COUNTY v. EWING, County Collector, et al.
Decision Date08 May 1893
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from circuit court, Scotland county; James G. Blair, Special Judge.

Action by the state of Missouri, at the relation and to the use of Scotland county Mo., against Joel Ewing, W. H. F. Smith, Thomas Broadwater, Joseph Miller, J. L. Durnal, Thomas McAllister, George Black, C. J. Alexander, N. V. Leslie, John D. Smoot, J. T. Spillman, and H. G. Pitkin, on the official bond of Ewing as collector of such county, to recover excessive commissions allowed him in his settlement with the county court. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

John C. Moore, for appellant. John D. Smoot, McKee & Jayne, and Mudd & Wagner, for respondents.

MACFARLANE, J.

This action is upon the official bond of Joel Ewing, as collector of Scotland county, to recover certain sums retained by him on settlements as commissions, in excess, as is charged, of what was due him under the law. Defendants pleaded the settlements in bar. On the trial it was shown that Ewing was collector of the county during the years 1888 and 1889, and the other defendants were securities on his bond. That in 1888 he made settlement with the county court, in which he charged himself with $89,064.89 taxes received for collection between March, 1887, and March, 1888, and with collections amounting to $47,867.52. He was allowed 4 per cent. commissions on the collections. In his settlement made in March, 1889, he charged himself with $75,836.87 as taxes coming into his hands for collection between March, 1888, and March, 1889, and with $43,246.17 collections. He was allowed 4 per cent. commission on the amount collected. For the year 1888 there was levied by the county court, without an order from the circuit court or judge, the sum of $41,343.34, to pay certain judgments against the county rendered upon interest coupons on bonds of the county given in aid of railroads. For the year 1889 the sum of $26,590.87 was levied for like purposes, also without the order of the circuit court or judge. These levies were not made at the time the general levies for county purposes were made. Under the evidence the court directed a verdict for defendants, and plaintiff appealed.

1. If the county court, in its settlement with the collector, determined the rate per centum of the commission to which he was entitled upon the amount of taxes collected, instead of the amount levied for the respective years, we think it mistook the law. Section 76401 provides that the collector shall receive as full compensation for his services in collecting the revenue, except back taxes, commissions to be determined upon the whole "state, county, bridge, road, school, and all other local taxes, including merchants' and dramshop licenses, assessed and levied for any one year;" the per cent. to be estimated upon the amount collected. "In all counties wherein the total amount of all such taxes and licenses levied for any one year exceeds sixty thousand dollars and is less than eighty thousand dollars, a commission of three per cent. on the amount collected; in all counties wherein the total amount of all such taxes and licenses levied for any one year exceeds eighty thousand dollars and is less than one hundred and twenty thousand dollars, two and one-half per cent. on the amount collected." It is manifest from a reading of the foregoing provisions that the per cent. of the commissions should have been determined by the amount of all such taxes levied; that is, by the amount ordered or required to be raised, and not by the amount actually collected.

2. The taxes specially levied to pay judgments against the county recovered on railroad aid bonds were county taxes, within the true intent and meaning of said section 7640, and the amounts of these levies should have been included in ascertaining the total levies for the purpose of fixing the rate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Kansas City v. Halvorson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 6 December 1943
    ... ... Rule 22 of the rules of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. Rule 22, Circuit Court of Jackson County; Rigdon ... (2d) 117. (2) The amended petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Childs v ... L. Transit Co., 213 Mo. 244, 112 S.W. 249; State ex rel. v. Burney, 269 Mo. 602, 191 S.W. 981; Seegers v. Marx-Haas ... Bank, 74 Mo. App. 281; State ex rel. Scotland County v. Ewing, 116 Mo. 129, 22 S.W. 476; State ex rel ... ...
  • Kansas City v. Halvorson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 6 December 1943
    ... ... Jackson County, Missouri. Rule 22, Circuit Court of Jackson ... County; ... (2) The amended petition fails to ... state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action ... Transit Co., 213 Mo. 244, 112 S.W ... 249; State ex rel. v. Burney, 269 Mo. 602, 191 S.W ... 981; Seegers v ... Bank, 74 Mo.App. 281; ... State ex rel. Scotland County v. Ewing, 116 Mo. 129, ... 22 S.W. 476; State ex ... ...
  • Coleman v. Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 30 October 1941
    ... ... St. Paul, 284 N.W. 291; ... People ex rel. Mulvey v. Chicago, 292 Ill. 589, 12 ... N.E.2d 13; ... Kidd, 94 P.2d 429; ... Shouse v. Board of County Commrs., 99 P.2d 779; ... People ex rel. v. Schick, 14 ... City of Newark, 193 A. 177; ... State ex rel. Anderson v. King, 71 P.2d 370; ... State ex rel ... 26, 46 S.W. 963; State ex rel. Scotland County v ... Ewing, 116 Mo. 129, 22 S.W. 476. (e) The ... ...
  • Lamar Township v. City of Lamar
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 14 July 1914
    ... ...          (1) The ... petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a ... cause of action. It ... State ... ex rel. v. Piper, 214 Mo. 446. (6) The mutilated and ... Jasper Co., 213 ... Mo. 237; State ex rel. v. Ewing, 116 Mo. 137; ... State ex rel. v. Shipman, 125 Mo ... A township is a political subdivision ... of a county for local governmental purposes and is in a sense ... a ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT