State v. Bollinger

Decision Date13 April 1909
Citation219 Mo. 204,117 S.W. 1132
PartiesSTATE ex rel. CARTER et al. v. BOLLINGER et al., Justices of County Court.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

In Banc. Petition by the State, on the relation of A. H. Carter and others, for a writ of prohibition to D. C. Bollinger and others, Justices of the County Court. Writ denied.

This is an original proceeding instituted in this court by relators, seeking to prohibit respondents, as judges of the county court of Stoddard county, from building a vault and repairing the courthouse of said county.

The petition upon which the provisional writ of prohibition was issued, omitting formal parts, is as follows:

"Now, this day, comes A. H. Carter, J. N. Miller, Samuel Ulen, A. Morgan, S. N. Jeffers, J. H. Cummings, E. C. Mohrstadt, C. O. Biggs, R. L. Ladd, and Lee Williams, and respectfully represent to this honorable court that they are solvent, resident taxpayers of Stoddard county, Mo., and bring this proceeding on behalf of themselves and on the behalf of all other taxpayers similarly situated; that respondent D. C. Bollinger is now, and was at all times herein mentioned, presiding justice of the county court of said Stoddard county, duly elected and qualified; that John H. Harper and T. W. Boyd are now and were at all times referred to herein associate justices of said county court of Stoddard county, Mo., duly elected, qualified, and acting as such; that under and by virtue of section 9283, Rev. St. 1899 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 4264), of the state of Missouri, it became and was the duty of respondents herein, as said county court, at its May term, 1907, to appropriate, apportion, and subdivide all the revenue collected and to be collected, received and to be received, for county purposes in the following order: (1) A sum sufficient for the payment of all the necessary expenses that may be incurred for the care of paupers and insane persons of such county. (2) A sum sufficient for the payment of all necessary expenses for the building of bridges and repairing of roads, including the pay of road overseers of such county. (3) A sum sufficient for the payment of the salary of all county officers, where the same is by law made payable out of the ordinary revenues of the county. (4) A sum sufficient for the payment of the fees of grand and petit jurors, judges and clerks of elections, and fees of witnesses for the grand jury of the county. (5) A sum sufficient for the payment of the other ordinary current expenses of the county not hereinbefore specially provided for, which shall be known and designated as the `Contingent Fund' of such county, which last sum shall in no case exceed one-fifth of the total revenue of such county for county purposes for any one year.

"That, in violation of their duty as prescribed by said section 9283, respondents, constituting the county court aforesaid, did not at the May term, 1907, of said court, or at any other time during said year 1907, appropriate, apportion, and subdivide the revenues of said Stoddard county as required by said section; and your petitioners further represent that said Stoddard county has not adopted and is not now under township organization. Your petitioners further represent that on the 9th day of October, 1907, respondents herein, in violation of their duties as justices of the county court, by order of record, a copy of which duly certified under the seal of said court, is hereto attached, illegally, unlawfully, and without jurisdiction so to do, ordered and directed the treasurer of said Stoddard county to keep, in connection with the county treasurer, a special fund in the sum of $8,189.38, which said last-mentioned sum is and was a part of the general revenue fund of said Stoddard county, and the said sum has been by the said order, of date October 9, 1907, unlawfully diverted and withdrawn from the funds of said Stoddard county and made to constitute a fund unknown to the law; that the purpose and intent of respondents in diverting the fund above mentioned from the general revenue fund of said county and creating a special and unlawful fund was to provide and accumulate money in said fund for the improvement of and erection of additions to the courthouse of said Stoddard county, and not for repairs incident to the maintenance and use of said courthouse, as will more fully appear by the order made by said court on October 15, 1907, a copy of which, duly exemplified under the seal of said county court, is hereto attached, also by another order of said county court, dated the 18th day of December, 1907, an exemplified copy of which, under the seal of said court, is herewith annexed.

"Your petitioners also represent to this honorable court that until respondents at its May term, 1907, or at some other date, met and apportioned the revenue of said county, in accordance with the provisions of said section 9283, they were without power, jurisdiction, or authority to apportion said revenues in any manner or to any purpose whatsoever; and especially your petitioners represent that respondents, having failed and refused at any and all times during the year 1907 to apportion the revenues of said county as required and commanded by section 9283, are and were without authority and jurisdiction to apportion and set aside during said year the said unlawful fund taken from the unapportioned and undivided revenues of said county.

"Your petitioners also state that there is now on hand to the credit of said Stoddard county with the treasurer thereof a large sum of money belonging to the revenue of said county, which fund it will be the duty of respondents at the May term, 1908, of the county court of said county, to apportion and subdivide in accordance with said section 9283; and until May term, 1908, respondents are without authority and jurisdiction to apportion and subdivide in any manner whatsoever, and said sum now on hand has not been heretofore apportioned or subdivided by order of the county court of Stoddard county by virtue of the authority contained in said section 9283; but petitioners herein charge the fact to be that respondents are now preparing and are about to divert and apportion said sum now on hand and thereby augment the unlawful fund heretofore created by respondents, known upon their records as the `Vault Fund'; that respondents threaten and are about to, on the 7th day of February, 1908, contract, on the part of said Stoddard county, large debts for the improvement and building of additions to the courthouse of said Stoddard county in manner and form unwarranted by law, and to provide for the payment of said unlawful debt about to be contracted, on the date last mentioned, respondents herein intent and threaten on or before the said 7th day of February, 1908, to unlawfully divert and set aside to the credit of said vault fund the large sum of money now in the treasury of said county, unapportioned and not subdivided as the law directs, and which cannot be apportioned and subdivided until the May term, 1908, of said Stoddard county, all of which petitioners say respondents have no authority or jurisdiction to do.

"Your petitioners further say that respondents threaten and are about to expend the said sum of $8,189.38, belonging to the general revenue fund of said county and heretofore unlawfully diverted therefrom, in discharge of debts about to be created illegally and without authority and for the purpose of building additions to said Stoddard county courthouse; that none of the funds above mentioned as unlawfully set aside by respondents, or about to be set aside by respondents, belong to other than the revenue of said Stoddard county, which the county court thereof is required to apportion and subdivide in accordance with the provisions of said section 9283.

"That respondents, constituting said county court, failed and refused at the May term, 1907, of said court, or at any other date during the year last named, to subdivide the revenues of said county as required by law, that they might thereby, when by them deemed proper, by order of record, divert the same and create thereby an illegal fund known by the records of said county court as the `Vault Fund'; that said fund now on hand is now about to be set aside, as above mentioned, into said vault fund in order that the debt about to be entered into on the 7th day of February, 1908, may be therewith paid off and discharged; that as a consequence of said failure and refusal to respondents as the county court of said county to apportion and subdivide at its May term, 1907, the county revenues as required by law, said Stoddard county is without a road and bridge...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • The State ex rel. Applegate v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1909
    ... ... fifth subdivision of section 9283, and the county treasurer ... could pay it out of that fund; and neither the county court ... nor the county treasurer would violate any law by so doing ... The contingent fund was created to meet just such ... emergencies. [State ex rel. v. Bollinger, 219 Mo. 204, 117 ... S.W. 1132.] ...          And the ... mere fact that the county is to be reimbursed by the district ... for the money so paid does not alter the situation in the ... least. A drainage district is a public and not a private ... corporation. [ Morrison v. Morey, ... ...
  • State v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1909
    ...county treasurer would violate any law by so doing. The contingent fund was created to meet just such emergencies. State ex rel. v. Bollinger, 219 Mo. 204, 117 S. W. 1132. And the mere fact that the county is to be reimbursed by the district for the money so paid does not alter the situatio......
  • Decker v. Diemer
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1910
    ... ... exercise of the power they must be observed before the power ... can be lawfully exercised. State ex rel. v ... Railroad, 87 Mo. 239; R. S. 1899, secs. 9273-4. The ... evidence showed that the levy made by the court for current ... county ... the county court. R. S. 1899, sec. 6723; State ex rel. v ... Howell Co., 58 Mo. 583; State ex rel. v ... Bollinger, 219 Mo. 209; Wolcott v. Lawrence ... Co., 26 Mo. 276; Anderson v. Ripley Co., 181 ... Mo. 62. (4) Neither was the county court inhibited by ... ...
  • State ex rel. Fitzgerald v. Missouri Com'n for the Blind
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1932
    ...of the discretion of any board or commission unless it clearly appears that there has been an abuse of discretion. State v. Bollinger, 219 Mo. 204, 117 S.W. 1132; State v. St. Louis, 158 Mo. 505, 59 S.W. State v. Cramer, 96 Mo. 75, 8 S.W. 788; State v. Wilson, 49 Mo. 146; State v. Holman, 2......
  • 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