State v. Mooneyham

• Decision Date: 22 December 1922
• Docket Number: No. 22515.,22515.
• Citation: 296 Mo. 421,247 S.W. 163
• Parties: STATE ex rel. TADLOCK, Pros. Atty., v. MOONEYHAM et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

247 S.W. 163

296 Mo. 421

STATE ex rel. TADLOCK, Pros. Atty., v. MOONEYHAM et al.

No. 22515.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

December 22, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; Grant Emerson, Judge.

Suit by the State, on the relation of T. C. Tadlock, Prosecuting Attorney of Jasper County, against Robert A. Mooneyham and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Cause transferred to the Springfield Court of Appeals.

J. D. Harris, of Carthage, for appellants.

C. S. Walden, of Joplin, and Geo. W. Crowder, of Jefferson City, for respondent.

WHITE, C.

This, a suit in equity, was brought in the circuit court of Jasper county by the prosecuting attorney, who sought thereby to restrain the county treasurer of Jasper county, S. S. Nix, from paying to Robert A. Mooneyham a warrant for $6,000 issued by the county court of Jasper county on the 2d day of May, 1018.

The petition alleged that the judges of the county court, having full power by virtue of tile laws of this state to audit and allow all legal claims against the county, and to issue warrants for the same, without authority of law audited and allowed a claim or demand of Robert A. Mooneyham for $6,090, and wrongfully and illegally, without authority, drew a county warrant or script against said county treasury for the said sum of $6,000. It was then alleged that the warrant was issued in payment of attorney fees which the said Robert A. Mooneyham claimed to be due him for services rendered the county of Jasper in causing to be placed upon the tax books of said county property subject to taxation in the county which had not theretofore been duly assessed, and that the services rendered by the said Robert A. Mooneyham were rendered under a pretended contract which the said county court had no legal authority to make, and which was illegal and void, and did not give authority to the said Robert A. Mooneyham to render said services to said county. The petition then prayed that said Robert A. Mooneyham be directed to bring into court the county warrant issued as aforesaid, and that the same be declared illegal and void and by the said court canceled, and for a further decree that S. S. Nix, the county treasurer, be perpetually enjoined from paying said county warrant.

For answer the defendant admitted the employment of Mooneyham in the manner all alleged, the agreement to pay him for the services rendered, and issuance by the county court warrant for $6,000. The answer then alleges that the county court, having jurisdiction of the matter, had rendered its judgment and. decision thereon in favor of Mooneyham; that T. C. Tadluck, prosecuting attorney of Jasper county, had no right or authority to maintain the suit. For further defense the answer alleged that funds of the county, appropriated for various purposes, had become depleted, because large amounts of personal property in the county were escaping taxation; that the county court being advised that the county assessor of said county was unable, with the means at his command, Lo ferret out and discover said property, and or the 17th day of January, 1917, had entered, into a contract, in writing, whereby Robert A. Mooneyham, who was capable, efficient, and qualified to do such work, was employed to ferret out, discover, and locate omitted and unassessed personal property in Jasper county; that in pursuance of said employment said Mooneyham proceeded to ferret out and cause to be assessed property in Jasper county amounting to $8,000,000, so that the county realized $100,000 additional revenue by reason of the services rendered by him under the contract; that according to the terms of the contract said Mooneyham wan to receive 20 per cent, of the additional revenue collected by reason of his services, and he was therefore entitled to the sum of $20,000; that thereupon the county court sought to effect a compromise with Mooneyham before paying for his said services, and did effect a compromise, whereby said Mooneyham agreed to settle his claim for the sum of $6,000; that a warrant was issued and delivered to Mooneyham and presented to the county treasurer for payment. It was further alleged that, there being no money in the fund upon which the warrant was drawn, payment at the time was refused, and the warrant protested; that in the meantime, before the filing of this suit, Robert A. Mooneyham had for value received negotiated the warrant to the Citizens' National Bank of Golden City, Mo., and that bank had negotiated said warrant to a third person, whose name is to the defendant unknown. The defendant prayed to be discharged, with hie costs.

The facts agreed upon, as set out in the abstract of the record, correspond very closely with the allegations of the petition and answer. On a trial of the cause, March 27, 1920, the trial court rendered judgment for plaintiff as prayed in the petition, and defendant appealed.

I. There is no constitutional question involved which gives this court jurisdiction. The briefs filed here by both sides argue a construction of the...