State ex rel. St. Louis Cnty. v. Bonner
| Decision Date | 31 October 1880 |
| Citation | 72 Mo. 387 |
| Parties | THE STATE to the use of ST. LOUIS COUNTY v. BONNER et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.
REVERSED.
H. A. Clover and James B. Goff for appellants.
Leverett Bell and M. W. Huff for respondent.
This suit was commenced in the circuit court of St. Louis county to recover the penalty of a bond executed by Wm. H. Heath, as auditor of St. Louis county, and defendants as his securities. The petition, after alleging the title of St. Louis county to the school fund, after alleging the election and qualification of Heath as auditor. and the execution of the bond sued upon by him and defendants as sureties, avers that the condition of said bond was that “if said Heath shall well and faithfully demean himself in office and perform all the duties of his office according to law either now existing or which may hereafter be enacted, then the said obligation to be void,” otherwise to be of full force. The specific breach assigned is, that said Heath, as auditor of St. Louis county, from August 31st, 1871, to June 26th, 1876, collected and received into his possession, by virtue of his said office, divers sums of money for school purposes in said county, and constituting the school fund thereof, and the various townships in said county, aggregating $130,000, which he was required by law to pay into the treasury of said county, but that he failed to pay said sum into the treasury, and converted the same to his own use. On a trial in the circuit court, plaintiff obtained judgment, which, on motion of defendants, was arrested, and plaintiff declining to plead further, judgment was rendered for defendants, which, on the appeal of plaintiff to the St. Louis court of appeals, was reversed, and the cause is here on the appeal of defendants.
The only question presented by the record is, as to the sufficiency of the petition. It is contended by defendants that it fails to state a cause of action; first, because the suit cannot be prosecuted in the name of the State for the use of St. Louis county; and second, because it was no part of the duty of said Heath, as auditor, to collect the school money of the county or townships, or any part thereof, and pay the same into the treasury.
We will first consider the second objection made. Was it one of the official duties of Heath, as auditor, to collect said school money and pay it into the treasury? It is claimed, on the part of the plaintiff, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knox County v. Goggin
...other provisions of the statute and throwing into confusion our whole system of county finances." The case just cited and State to use v. Bonner, 72 Mo. 387, at rest the questions in hand, and show that the county clerk had no authority to collect the money due upon this bond and mortgage. ......
-
Riverside Lumber Company v. Schafer
... ... 1909; Knox County v. Coggin, 105 Mo. 182; State ... ex rel. v. Moeller, 48 Mo. 331; State to use v ... Louis Court of Appeals, and the judgment was affirmed by that ... ...
-
State v. Moore
...S. v. Adams, 24 Fed. 348;Ward v. Stahl, 81 N. Y. 406;Bank v. Chickering, 4 Pick. 314;City of San Jose v. Welch (Cal.) 4 Pac. 207;State v. Bonner, 72 Mo. 387;State v. Moeller, 48 Mo. 331;Nolley v. Callaway Co. Ct., 11 Mo. 447;Heidenheimer v. Brent, 59 Tex. 533;Saltenberry v. Loucks, 8 La. An......
-
State v. Moore
...v. Adams, 24 F. 348; Ward v. Stahl, 81 N.Y. 406; Dedham Bank v. Chickering, 21 Mass. 314; City of San Jose v. Welch, 4 P. 207; State v. Bonner, 72 Mo. 387; State v. Moeller, 48 Mo. 331; Nolley v. County Court, 11 Mo. 447; Heidenheimer v. Brent, 59 Tex. 533; Saltenberry v. Loucks, 8 La. Ann.......