State v. Scott County Court

• Decision Date: 16 July 1917
• Docket Number: No. 18599.,18599.
• Citation: 197 S.W. 347
• Parties: STATE ex rel. HUTTON v. SCOTT COUNTY COURT.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

197 S.W. 347

STATE ex rel. HUTTON v. SCOTT COUNTY COURT.

No. 18599.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

July 16, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Scott County; Frank Kelly, Judge.

Mandamus by the State, on the relation of W. H. Hutton, against the County Court of Scott County. From a judgment for respondent, denying a peremptory writ and quashing the alternative writ issued, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

J. Henry Caruthers, of Cape Girardeau, for appellant. John McWilliams, of Benton, for respondent.

WHITE, C.

The plaintiff in this case is the special representative of the village of Commerce, in Scott county, Mo., and, by an agreed statement of facts filed in the case, had full authority to represent the village herein; Commerce being duly incorporated as a village under the laws of the state of Missouri. The action is to compel by mandamus the county court of Scott county to pay to the village of Commerce the sum of $169.73. The matter arose in this way:

There had been paid into the county treasury of Scott county the sums of money apportioned to that county from the taxation of insurance companies, under section 7102, R. S. 1909, for 17 years, from 1895 to 1911, inclusive. Section 7103 of the Revised Statutes of 1909 provides that, when money is received under section 7102 by the treasurer of a county, it shall be the duty of the county court to apportion said money among the corporate cities and towns in such county. The county court of Scott county, having received the portions falling to the county under section 7102, made no distribution of the same from 1895 until 1911, inclusive. The sums received during those years were placed at interest; the minimum rate of 3 per cent. per annum accumulated during all that period, and was by the county court of Scott county placed to the credit of the bridge fund. In 1912 the county court, in computing what portion of the money received as above stated was due the village of Commerce, ascertained the amount to be $603.58, covering those 17 years, and paid that amount to Commerce. The interest which had accrued on that sum during the time it had remained in the control of the county court was $169.73. This had been placed in the bridge fund, as stated. After the village received its warrant for the principal sum, it presented a demand to the county court for the interest, $169.73. The county court took up the matter of this demand, considered it, and disallowed it. This proceeding was then brought for the purpose of compelling its payment. The judgment of the circuit court was for the respondent, denying a peremptory writ and quashing the alternative writ issued.

Mandamus will not lie in this case. It is not available as a remedy where an appeal will lie to enforce action which the mandamus seeks to compel. In this case the village of...