State v. Adams

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtBrace
PartiesSTATE ex rel. LINN COUNTY v. ADAMS et al.
Decision Date18 February 1903
72 S.W. 655
172 Mo. 1
STATE ex rel. LINN COUNTY
v.
ADAMS et al.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.
February 18, 1903.

COUNTY CLERK — COMPENSATION — MEMBER OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION — LIABILITY OF SURETIES.

1. Rev. St. 1899, c. 149, § 9130, creates in each county a board of equalization, consisting of the county clerk, as secretary, and others. Sections 9131, 9133, and 9135 point out the duties of the board, and provide that the clerk shall keep an accurate record of the proceedings, and adjust the taxbook according to the orders of the board; and section 9136 provides that the members shall receive $3 a day for each day they shall act as such board. Held, that the county clerk is entitled to $3 a day, and not entitled to any other fees or compensation; the clerical duties imposed on him being in his capacity as county clerk.

2. Where the county clerk was ex officio a member of the county board of equalization, and received, as secretary of such board, fees to which he was not entitled as compensation, and failed to account therefor in his return of fees received, the sureties on his official bond as county clerk were liable, notwithstanding that he received the fees as "secretary of the board of equalization."

Appeal from circuit court, Linn county; Jno. P. Butler, Judge.

Action by the state, on the relation of Linn county, against George W. Adams, as clerk thereof, and the sureties on his official bond. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

[72 S.W. 656]

A. W. Mullins, W. K. Amick, and Harry K. West, for appellants. E. B. Fields and Thos. P. Burns, for respondent.

BRACE, P. J.


This is a suit by Linn county against George W. Adams, clerk of the county court of said county, and the sureties on his official bond, to recover the sum of $167.32, which it is alleged he received as fees of his office in excess of the amount which he is by law allowed to retain, and which he refuses to account for. The judgment was for the plaintiff, and the defendants appeal.

The determination of the questions raised in the case depends upon the construction of the following provisions of the revenue act (Rev. St. 1899, c. 149):

"Sec. 9130. There shall be in each county of this state, except the city of St. Louis, a county board of equalization, which board shall consist of the county clerk, who shall be secretary of the same, but have no vote, the county surveyor, the judges of the county court, and the county assessor, which board shall meet at the office of the county clerk on the first Monday in April of each year. * * *

"Sec. 9131. Said board shall have power to hear complaints, and to equalize the valuation and assessments upon all real and personal property within the county which is made taxable by law, and having each taken an oath administered by the clerk fairly and impartially to equalize the valuation of all the taxable property in such county, shall immediately proceed to equalize the valuation, and assessment of all such property, both real and personal, within their counties respectively, so that each tract of land shall be entered on the tax book at its true value. * * *

"Sec. 9133. The said board shall hear and determine all appeals made from the valuation of property made by the assessor in a summary way and shall correct and adjust the assessment accordingly. The county clerk shall keep an accurate record of the proceedings and orders of the board, and the assessor shall correct all erroneous assessments, and the clerk shall adjust the tax book according to the orders of said board, and the orders of the state board of equalization. * * *

"Sec. 9135. In case the report from the state board of equalization...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • State v. Stockwell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • February 14, 1912
    ...45 N. E. 604;Torbert v. Hale County, 131 Ala. 143, 30 South. 453;State ex rel. v. Brown, 146 Mo. 401, 47 S. W. 504;State ex rel. v. Adams, 172 Mo. 1, 72 S. W. 655;Bates v. St. Louis, 153 Mo. 18, 54 S. W. 439, 77 Am. St. Rep. 701;State v. Meserve, 58 Neb. 451, 78 N. W. 721;Bennett v. Orange,......
  • Leckenby v. Post Printing & Publishing Co., 9328.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • December 2, 1918
    ...486; State v. Brown, 146 Mo. 401, 47 S.W. 504; Bates v. City, 153 Mo. [65 Colo. 448] 18, 54 S.W. 439, 77 Am.St.Rep. 701; State v. Adams, 172 Mo. 1, 72 S.W. 655; State v. Silver, 9 Neb. 85, 2 N.W. 215; Bayha v. Webster Co., 18 Neb. 131, 24 N.W. 457; Red Willow Co. v. Smith, 67 Neb. 213, 93 N......
  • Nodaway County v. Kidder, No. 35742.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1939
    ...can only recover such compensation as is specifically authorized by statute. William v. Chariton County, 85 Mo. 645; Linn County v. Adams, 172 Mo. 1; Hill v. Butler County, 195 Mo. 511. Furthermore, an officer in Missouri does services gratuitously, unless some statutory authorization is fo......
  • State ex rel. Sullivan County v. Maryland Cas. Co., No. 30806.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 11, 1933
    ...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 explanat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • State v. Stockwell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • February 14, 1912
    ...45 N. E. 604;Torbert v. Hale County, 131 Ala. 143, 30 South. 453;State ex rel. v. Brown, 146 Mo. 401, 47 S. W. 504;State ex rel. v. Adams, 172 Mo. 1, 72 S. W. 655;Bates v. St. Louis, 153 Mo. 18, 54 S. W. 439, 77 Am. St. Rep. 701;State v. Meserve, 58 Neb. 451, 78 N. W. 721;Bennett v. Orange,......
  • Leckenby v. Post Printing & Publishing Co., 9328.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • December 2, 1918
    ...486; State v. Brown, 146 Mo. 401, 47 S.W. 504; Bates v. City, 153 Mo. [65 Colo. 448] 18, 54 S.W. 439, 77 Am.St.Rep. 701; State v. Adams, 172 Mo. 1, 72 S.W. 655; State v. Silver, 9 Neb. 85, 2 N.W. 215; Bayha v. Webster Co., 18 Neb. 131, 24 N.W. 457; Red Willow Co. v. Smith, 67 Neb. 213, 93 N......
  • Nodaway County v. Kidder, No. 35742.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1939
    ...can only recover such compensation as is specifically authorized by statute. William v. Chariton County, 85 Mo. 645; Linn County v. Adams, 172 Mo. 1; Hill v. Butler County, 195 Mo. 511. Furthermore, an officer in Missouri does services gratuitously, unless some statutory authorization is fo......
  • State ex rel. Sullivan County v. Maryland Cas. Co., No. 30806.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 11, 1933
    ...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 explanat......
  • 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