State ex rel. Sullivan County v. Maryland Cas. Co., No. 30806.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtGantt
Citation66 S.W.2d 537
PartiesSTATE OF MISSOURI at the Relation of SULLIVAN COUNTY v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error.
Docket NumberNo. 30806.
Decision Date11 December 1933
66 S.W.2d 537
STATE OF MISSOURI at the Relation of SULLIVAN COUNTY
v.
MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error.
No. 30806.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
Division One, December 11, 1933.

Writ of Error to Linn Circuit Court.Hon. Paul Van Osdol, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Harris & Koontz for plaintiff in error.

(1) The court was in error in rendering judgment for the plaintiff county and against plaintiff in error in any amount, because under the evidence a surety upon the treasurer's bond could not be charged with any defalcation. County of Scott v. John Ring, 29 Minn. 398; Board of County Commissioners v. Knudson, 71 Minn. 461; Governor v. Matlock, 12 N.C. 214; State ex rel. Maries County v. Johnson, 55 Mo. 80; State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Schaper, 152 Mo. App. 538; State of Missouri ex rel. Martin v. Harbridge, 43 Mo. App. 16; Alcorn v. The State, 57 Miss. 273; Cooper v. People, 85 Ill. 417; State v. Felton, 59 Miss. 402; Broad v. Paris, 66 Tex. 119; Commonwealth v. Zachry, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 188; Commonwealth v. Toms, 45 Pa. St. 408. (2) The court erred in rendering judgment for the county and against plaintiff in error in the sum of $21,688.31 because under the evidence, the court was in error in finding any such amount and because the court failed, in fixing such amount, to allow credits to which plaintiff in error was justly entitled, and the court in finding such amount took into consideration amounts of monies charged against the treasurer when there was no evidence to show that such amounts had ever been in the possession of Matkins as treasurer. County of Scott v. John Ring, 29 Minn. 398; Board of County Commissioners v. Knudson, 71 Minn. 461; Governor v. Matlock, 12 N.C. 214; State ex rel. Maries County v. Johnson, 55 Mo. 80; State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Schaper, 152 Mo. App. 538; State of Missouri ex rel. Martin v. Harbridge, 43 Mo. App. 16; Alcorn v. The State, 57 Miss. 273; Cooper v. People, 85 Ill. 417; State v. Felton, 59 Miss. 402; Broad v. Paris, 66 Tex. 119; Commonwealth v. Zachry, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 188; Commonwealth v. Toms, 45 Pa. St. 408.

E.M. Harber, P.M. Marr, L.E. Atherton and M.D. Campbell for defendant in error.

(1) There being no claim of error in the record proper, and matters of exception not being before this court, the purported bill of exceptions being a nullity, there is nothing before this court to consider under the writ of error, which is a new action. Secs. 1008, 1009, R.S. 1929; State v. Bennett, 6 S.W. (2d) 88; Turner v. Edmonston, 210 Mo. 411; Macklin v. Allenburg, 100 Mo. 337; Barber v. Young, 68 S.W. 107. (2) The special finding of facts set out in the purported bill of exceptions was not requested by any party to the suit, has no place herein, and will be ignored by this court. Kansas City v. Boyer, 202 S.W. 1086; State ex rel. Ward v. Trimble, 39 S.W. (2d) 372. (3) There being only a general judgment for defendant in error, it must be sustained if there is any evidence to support it. Kansas City v. Boyer, 202 S.W. 1086; McEvoy v. Lane, 9 Mo. 48; State ex rel. Ward v. Trimble, 39 S.W. (2d) 372. (4) All of the evidence not being brought up by plaintiff in error, this court will not say there was no evidence to support the judgment. Reed v. Peck, 163 Mo. 333. (5) By mixing and commingling all funds in his account as treasurer, Matkins became liable on his bond as treasurer. State ex rel. Dunklin Co. v. Blakemore, 275 Mo. 695, 205 S.W. 626; State v. Adams, 172 Mo. 1; State v. McDaniel, 59 S.W. 451; 15 C.J., p. 522, secs. 199, 200. (6) After showing of commingling of funds, burden passed to Matkins to make explanation, which he did not do, though present at trial, and matter was within his special knowledge. State ex rel. Dunklin County v. Blakemore, 275 Mo. 695, 205 S.W. 626; Cuthbert v. Holmes, 14 S.W. (2d) 444; Fulwilder v. Power Co., 116 S.W. 508, 216 Mo. 582; State v. Matkins, 34 S.W. (2d) 1; Dunkeson v. Williams, 242 S.W. 658; Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 117 Mo. 261. (7) Whatever estops the principal estops the surety. State ex rel. Dunklin County v. Blakemore, 275 Mo. 695, 205 S.W. 626; Union State Bank v. Am. Surety Co., 23 S.W. (2d) 1038. (8) Matkins, being indebted to the county and paying it a sum less than the total due, and making no application of the payment to particular funds, authorized the county to apply the payment as it deemed best, and the bringing of the suit on the treasurer's bond was an application of the payment to his indebtedness, if any, to all funds other than those covered by the treasurer's bond sued on. State ex rel. Dunklin County v. Blakemore, 275 Mo. 695, 205 S.W. 626; Henry County v. Salmon, 201 Mo. 136; Goetz v. Piel, 26 Mo. App. 641; Haynes v. Waite, 14 Cal. 446; State v. McDaniel, 59 S.W. 451. (9) Plaintiff in error is bound by Matkins' books and records and what he charged himself with, and by his admissions. Clark Co. v. Hayman, 142 Mo. 430; Father Matthews Society v. Fitzwilliam, 84 Mo. 406; St. Louis v. Foster, 24 Mo. 141. (10) The trial court allowed Matkins every credit to which he was entitled, and more too. Secs. 9541, 9543, 9544, R.S. 1919; Morrow v. Surber, 97 Mo. 155; State ex rel. Vernon County v. King, 136 Mo. 309; Secs. 9500, 13083, 13084, R.S. 1919; State ex rel. Dunklin County v. Blakemore, 275 Mo. 695, 205 S.W. 626; Sec. 3342, R.S. 1919. (11) Accountant Craig's report was admissible. Masonic Mut. Ben. Soc. v. Lackland, 97 Mo. 137; State v. Matkins, 34 S.W. (2d) 1.

GANTT, J.


Action against Wm. A. Matkins and the Maryland Casualty Company on the bond given by Matkins as treasurer of Sullivan County.

In substance, the petition alleged the election of Matkins as said treasurer on November 4, 1924; that he duly qualified and was commissioned on May 1, 1925; that the Maryland Casualty Company was incorporated under the laws of Maryland; that it was authorized to become surety on bonds in Missouri for hire; that on September 29, 1925, Matkins, as principal, and the casualty company, as surety, executed an official bond for $120,000 payable to the State and conditioned upon the faithful performance by Matkins of his duties as treasurer of said county; that said bond became effective about October 1, 1925, and was in full force and effect at all times herein mentioned; that Matkins continued in the discharge of his duties as treasurer and ex officio collector of said county, under township organization, until July 12, 1928, at which time he resigned as treasurer of said county; that between October 1, 1925, and July 12, 1928, Matkins collected and received large sums...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Empire Dist. Elec. Co. v. Public Service Com'n, No. 13696
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 28, 1986
    ...Powell, 338 Mo. 1032, 1038-39, 93 S.W.2d 877, 880[5, 6] (1936); State ex rel. Sullivan County v. Maryland Casualty Co., 334 Mo. 259, 265, 66 S.W.2d 537, 539[4, 5] (1933); Parkview General Hospital, Inc. v. Ashmore, 462 S.W.2d 360, 365-66 (Tex.Civ.App.1971). However, the Commission, as a tri......
  • Linnell v. London & Lancashire Indem. Co., No. 6996.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • March 16, 1946
    ...Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Shaw, Tex.Civ.App., 8 S.W.2d 196;State ex rel. Sullivan County v. Maryland Cas. Co., 334 Mo. 259, 66 S.W.2d 537;Alabama Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Alabama Penny Sav. Bank, 200 Ala. 337, 76 So. 103;Hubble v. Hubble, 130 Or. 177, 279 P. 550;Shreve v. United States,......
  • State v. Schrader, No. 6354
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • April 30, 1958
    ...v. Alabama Penny Savings Bank, 1917, 200 Ala. 337, 76 So. 103; State ex rel. Sullivan County v. Maryland Casualty Co., 1933, 334 Mo. 259, 66 S.W.2d 537; Bible v. Somers Const. Co., 1944, 197 Ga. 761, 30 S.E.2d 623; Linnell v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co., 1946, 74 N.D. 379, 22 N.W.2d 2......
  • Rol Miller & Sons, Inc. v. Schultz Products Co., No. 32594
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 18, 1967
    ...The use of a summary is proper under those circumstances. State ex rel. Sullivan County v. Maryland Casualty Co., 334 Mo. 259, 66 S.W.2d 537(4, 5), and Bolling Company v. Barrington Company, Mo.App., 398 S.W.2d 28(6). The court did not err in permitting plaintiff's president to testify from......
4 cases
  • State ex rel. Empire Dist. Elec. Co. v. Public Service Com'n, No. 13696
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 28, 1986
    ...Powell, 338 Mo. 1032, 1038-39, 93 S.W.2d 877, 880[5, 6] (1936); State ex rel. Sullivan County v. Maryland Casualty Co., 334 Mo. 259, 265, 66 S.W.2d 537, 539[4, 5] (1933); Parkview General Hospital, Inc. v. Ashmore, 462 S.W.2d 360, 365-66 (Tex.Civ.App.1971). However, the Commission, as a tri......
  • Linnell v. London & Lancashire Indem. Co., No. 6996.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • March 16, 1946
    ...Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Shaw, Tex.Civ.App., 8 S.W.2d 196;State ex rel. Sullivan County v. Maryland Cas. Co., 334 Mo. 259, 66 S.W.2d 537;Alabama Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Alabama Penny Sav. Bank, 200 Ala. 337, 76 So. 103;Hubble v. Hubble, 130 Or. 177, 279 P. 550;Shreve v. United States,......
  • State v. Schrader, No. 6354
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • April 30, 1958
    ...v. Alabama Penny Savings Bank, 1917, 200 Ala. 337, 76 So. 103; State ex rel. Sullivan County v. Maryland Casualty Co., 1933, 334 Mo. 259, 66 S.W.2d 537; Bible v. Somers Const. Co., 1944, 197 Ga. 761, 30 S.E.2d 623; Linnell v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co., 1946, 74 N.D. 379, 22 N.W.2d 2......
  • Rol Miller & Sons, Inc. v. Schultz Products Co., No. 32594
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 18, 1967
    ...The use of a summary is proper under those circumstances. State ex rel. Sullivan County v. Maryland Casualty Co., 334 Mo. 259, 66 S.W.2d 537(4, 5), and Bolling Company v. Barrington Company, Mo.App., 398 S.W.2d 28(6). The court did not err in permitting plaintiff's president to testify from......

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