State v. Trammel
Decision Date | 09 November 1891 |
Citation | 17 S.W. 502,106 Mo. 510 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. HUDSON v. TRAMMEL, County Treasurer. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Gen. St. Mo. 1865, pp. 338, 339, §§ 17, 21, provide that counties, with the assent of two-thirds of the voters, shall have the right to subscribe to the stock of railroad companies, whether incorporated under the general law or some special act. It is also made the duty of the county court to levy a special tax to pay the subscription or the bonds issued therefor. The bonds in question were issued under Act Feb. 20, 1865, incorporating the M. & M. R. Co., and authorizing the levy of a "tax to pay the same not exceeding one-twentieth of one per cent." Held, that such bonds could be paid only out of the special tax provided for them, and not out of the general revenues of the county. 11 S. W. Rep. 747, affirmed. SHERWOOD, P. J., dissenting.
2. A judgment in mandamus from the United States circuit court, directing the county court to issue warrants for such bonds payable out of the general revenues of the county, must be taken as an adjudication of the status of said bonds by a court of competent jurisdiction, and is not reviewable in a state court. 11 S. W. Rep. 747, reversed. SHERWOOD, P. J., dissenting.
3. A denial on information and belief in a return to an alternative writ of mandamus is not sufficient, but such denial should be direct and positive; and so, too, the averment of matters in avoidance should be direct and positive.
On rehearing.
This was a petition in the circuit court for a mandamus against the defendant, Trammel, who is treasurer of Macon county, to compel him to pay a warrant for $10 held by Hudson, the relator. Trammel appealed from a judgment awarding a peremptory writ. This proceeding was commenced in April, 1886, and determined in May of same year. It is admitted that the relator presented his warrant for payment to the respondent treasurer in April, 1886, which payment was refused, and that it was properly drawn upon the "contingent fund." There were then sufficient funds in the treasury to the credit of that fund to pay the warrant. It is alleged in the return made by the treasurer to the alternative writ that the contingent fund is a part of the ordinary revenue of the county, arising from the levy of 30 cents on the $100 valuation, the other 20 of the 50 cents allowed by law belonging to the townships, the county being under township organization; that on the 29th April, 1884, there was registered against "the said ordinary and general funds and revenues" 15 other warrants to pay judgments rendered against Macon county by the circuit court of the United States, "which said warrants were issued, as respondent believes and is informed, by the county court of Macon county, in obedience to peremptory writs of mandamus issued from said circuit court of the United States." The names of the payees, and the amounts of their warrants, are set out, aggregating about $183,000, with the averment that they remain unpaid, and exceed in amount all the moneys and funds in the treasury. For further return, it is alleged that five of the said judgment warrant holders, whose warrants amount to some $60,000, obtained alternative writs of mandamus from the United States circuit court, directing the justices of the county court and the then treasurer to issue the warrant "on the general fund," and commanding the treasurer to register and pay the same in the order of registration "out of the general funds and revenues" then in and thereafter to come into the treasury; that the five warrants were issued and registered pursuant to such command; that the treasurer made return to each of said alternative writs, and issues were made up, the chief of which was whether the relators in said writs were entitled to have the money then raised, and thereafter to be raised, from the levy of 30 cents on the $100 valuation, applied to the payment of their warrants, in priority to and exclusion of warrants issued for ordinary county expenses; that the respondent in this case became a party respondent to those proceedings upon his accession to office. For a further return it is averred that another of said judgment warrants for $35,667 was issued to one Huidekoper, in obedience to a peremptory writ of mandamus from the United States circuit court; that said court in that proceeding, and in November, 1885, ordered the county treasurer to return an account of moneys collected and arising from the levy of 50 cents on the $100 valuation since the registration of that warrant, up to and including the 31st day of December, 1885; that the treasurer made return, and thereupon the relator in that case made the claim that the whole of the money collected and reported should be applied to the payment of his warrant; that the issues thus made remain undecided. There is the further general averment that all of the foregoing mandamus proceedings are still pending in the United States circuit court. The relator in his reply admits that the judgment warrants set up in the return were issued and registered as therein alleged, "but says they were issued to pay an indebtedness of said county other than the usual, ordinary, and necessary running expenses of said Macon county, to-wit, to pay judgments rendered on bonds and coupons subscribed by said county to the Missouri & Mississippi Railroad, and are only entitled to have paid on them any surplus remaining in the treasury after the ordinary expenses of the county are first paid." The evidence produced, it is conceded, shows that there was at the date of this trial some $17,000 in the county treasury; that $3,000 of that amount had reached the treasury since the last return made to the mandamus proceedings in the United States circuit court; that $2,000 of the $17,000 had been set apart to the contingent fund; and that $300 of the contingent fund had been collected since the said last return in said proceedings.
1. We have now, as we had on the former hearing of this case, much difficulty in understanding the facts involved in this contest. Some of the averments of the return are made on information and belief. A denial, on information and belief, in a return to an alternative writ of mandamus, is not sufficient. The denial must be direct and positive. State v. Williams, 96 Mo. 18, 8 S. W. Rep. 77. So, where matter in avoidance is set up in the return, the averments should also be direct and positive, and not on information and belief. But as no objection was made to this form of pleading, and as the reply seems to confess the matters thus alleged, they must be taken as admitted facts. Again, the return is very indefinite as to many important matters, and it may be that we do not yet understand the real facts.
2. The relator presented his warrant for payment on the 20th April, 1886. At that time there was sufficient money to the credit of the contingent fund to pay his warrant and all previous warrants registered against that specific fund. The relator is therefore entitled to the relief which he asks, unless it was the duty of the treasurer to apply the money to the credit of that fund to the payment of these bond warrants which were registered at a prior date, namely, on the 29th April, 1884. The primary question, therefore, is, out of what fund are these judgment bond warrants of right payable?
While it appears the bonds were issued to the Missouri & Mississippi Railroad Company, it does not appear when or under what law the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Howard-Sevier Road Improvement District No. 1 v. Hunt
... ... waited until the road was completed with the proceeds of the ... bonds and the contributions from the Federal Government and ... the State, and now, having received all the benefits and ... advantages of the improvement, seek to repudiate the debt ... They are estopped. 55 Ark. 148, ... ...
-
State ex rel. Guinan v. Jarrott
... ... It does not ... deny, even generally, a single averment made by relator. It ... sets out no state of facts to excuse his failure to sign the ... bill. It is equivocal, evasive, argumentative and frivolous ... State ex rel. v. Allison, 155 Mo. 325; State ex ... rel. v. Trammel, 106 Mo. 510; State ex rel. v ... Adams, 161 Mo. 349; Williams v. New Haven, 68 ... Conn. 263; Harris v. State, 96 Tenn. 496 ... "Every distinct and material allegation in the writ, if ... intended to be controverted, must be denied, and the traverse ... must be single, direct and ... ...
-
State ex rel. Thompson v. Jones
... ... in respondent's return, but in mandamus a general denial ... is not a sufficient traverse of the allegations of the writ ... [ State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 234 Mo. 331, 332, 137 ... S.W. 271; State ex rel. v. Allison, 155 Mo. 325, ... 328, 56 S.W. 467; State ex rel. Hudson v. Trammel, ... 106 Mo. 510, 515, 17 S.W. 502; State ex rel. Conran v ... Williams, 96 Mo. 13, 18, 8 S.W. 771.] It further appears ... from respondent's return that on July 14, 1930, when the ... said H. S. Bales, as agent of the State Tax Commission, ... assessed the property as aforesaid, the tax ... ...
-
State ex rel. Eggers v. Brown
... ... M. 36, 140 P. 1059, L. R. A. 1915A, ... 246; Fretz v. Edmond, 66 Okla. 262, 168 P. 800, L ... R. A. 1918C, 405. (7) Allegations in mandamus must be direct ... and positive. Evidence offered in support of no allegations ... whatsoever cannot be considered. State ex rel. Hudson v ... Trammel, 106 Mo. 510. (8) Respondents' Exhibit A ... unlawfully limited the restricted privilege accorded ... thereunder. In seeking to impose regulations covering the ... exercise of even the restricted personal privilege accorded, ... respondents usurped a legislative function. In recognizing ... ...