Trask v. Livingston County

• Citation: 210 Mo. 582,109 S.W. 656
• Parties: TRASK v. LIVINGSTON COUNTY.
• Decision Date: 31 March 1908
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

109 S.W. 656

210 Mo. 582

TRASK v. LIVINGSTON COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

March 31, 1908.

1. COUNTIES — POWER TO INCUR INDEBTEDNESS — LIMITATION OF AMOUNT — CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.

Const. art. 10, § 12 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 287), providing that no county shall be allowed to become indebted to an amount exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for such year, permits the anticipation of the current revenues to the extent of the year's income in which the debt is contracted or created, but prohibits the anticipation of the revenues of any future years; the object of the provision being to abolish the credit system in the administration of county government and establish the cash system.

2. SAME — CONTRACTS — VALIDITY.

Where one without any public letting, written contract, or appropriation, as required by Rev. St. 1899, c. 84 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 2705), builds a bridge for a county, and the county court issues a warrant for what it conceived to be the reasonable value thereof, the warrant does not constitute a valid indebtedness of the county.

3. SAME — CREATION OF INDEBTEDNESS.

Under Rev. St. 1899, §§ 5183, 5185-5188, 5190 (Ann. St. 1906, pp. 2705, 2706), requiring counties to build bridges, authorizing the county court to determine how bridges shall be built, providing for the letting of contracts, after publication, to the lowest bidder, prohibiting the doing of anything toward the building of a bridge until an appropriation therefor shall have been made by the county court, and prohibiting the county court from approving any contract for building any bridge if the contract is made in any other manner than as provided for by the statute relating to bridges, a county becomes indebted within Const. art. 10, § 12 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 287), providing that no county shall become indebted to an amount exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for such year, on its executing a contract for the construction of a bridge, after a compliance with the statute, accompanied by an appropriation therefor and a stipulation that the bridge shall be completed within the year, and does not become indebted on the bridge being formally accepted in a subsequent year and warrants issued therefor, and the warrants are chargeable against the revenue of the year during which the contract was executed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Linn County; John P. Butler, Judge.

Action by C. O. Trask against Livingston county. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John H. Taylor and F. Sheetz & Sons, for appellant. Tatlow & Mitchell, for respondent.

GANTT, J.

This is an action by the plaintiff as the assignee of 17 warrants issued, by the county court of Livingston county, to the original holders thereof, for materials furnished and work and labor done for said county in the year 1890. The petition counts separately upon each warrant and its assignment to plaintiff, its presentation to the county treasurer, and its dishonor and protest, and judgment is prayed for the aggregate of all of said warrants with interest. The answer pleads that the said several warrants were issued in excess of the revenue of said county for the year 1890, and also invokes the five-year statute of limitations. The reply was a general denial. The venue was changed to Linn county. A jury was waived, and the cause tried to the court, and resulted in a judgment for plaintiff for $2,407.75, at the December term, 1904. The facts developed on the trial were as follows: Plaintiff offered and read in evidence warrants 1 to 16, inclusive, which correspond with the several counts of the petition based thereon; and, as no point is made on them, by agreement of counsel they were omitted from the bill of exceptions. Plaintiff then read in evidence the following stipulation: "C. O. Trask v. Livingston County. In the Linn Circuit Court, October Term, 1904. For the purpose of saving costs, the parties in the above-entitled suit agree that the total income and revenue provided for the year 1890 for the said Livingston county, Missouri, amounted to the sum of $21,283.66. Second. That the following is a complete and correct copy of the register of warrants for the year 1890 in Livingston county, Missouri, and as contained in the county clerk's warrant register No. 2 beginning at warrant No. 4963, issued on January 6, 1890, and ending with warrant No. 5988, issued on December 30, 1890, which are not copied herein but amount to total issue of $26,782.86. Third. That the signatures to the warrants sued on, to wit, the signatures of the county clerk and the presiding judge of the county court of said county are genuine as well as the signatures of the county treasurer, showing the respective dates of presentment and protest of said warrants; and also the signatures of the respective assignments thereon are likewise genuine. Fourth. It is agreed that any additional proof may be offered by either side as to these facts or any other facts material in this case." Plaintiff then offered and read in evidence Exhibit B, consisting of copies of 11 warrants with their indorsements, Nos. 5379 to 5390, inclusive, all payable out of money in the treasury, appropriated for bridge fund, and each for $500, except the last, which is for $197. As no point is made as to their form, it is unnecessary to set them out at length. All of these 11 warrants were payable to the Clinton Bridge & Iron Company, each for $500, except No. 5390, which was for $197, all protested May 20, 1890, all of which were assigned to the Clinton National Bank, and by it assigned to W. F. Carter, Jr., and upon which an action was brought in the circuit court of Livingston county, and then pending, to the introduction of which defendant duly objected as irrelevant and not the best evidence. Plaintiff then offered the report of the road and bridge commissioner of the bids for building a county bridge over Grand river, between Chillicothe and Utica, showing the bid of the Clinton Bridge & Iron Company to be $4,874, and the lowest bid thereof, and of H. Hedges of the same company, for the bridge over Shoal creek for $820 to be the lowest bid, which were approved by the county court, and contracts ordered to be let, and an appropriation made for each, on the 5th day of September, 1889, at the August adjourned term of said county court. Contracts were entered into in writing by said bridge company and the road and bridge commissioner of said county on September 7, 1889, whereby said bridge company agreed to complete said bridges on or before January 1, 1890, and maintain the same for four years from and after their completion, for which the county agreed to pay said sums of $4,874 and $820 in county warrants, to be drawn at the first meeting of the county court after the completion and acceptance of said bridges. The bridge company also entered into a bond for its faithful performance of said contracts. Afterwards on May 19, 1890, said bridges were accepted, and on May 20, 1890, warrants were ordered issued, and were issued therefor. At the conclusion of all the evidence defendant prayed the court to declare the law to be that, under the pleadings and the evidence, the finding must be for defendant, which was refused, and defendant excepted. Thereupon the court found all the issues for plaintiff on each of said counts, and rendered judgment in the aggregate for $2,407.75, to bear interest at 6 per cent. from its rendition. On the same day defendant filed its motions for a new trial and in arrest, which were heard and overruled, and defendant excepted.

1. From the foregoing statement it becomes apparent that there is one single issue on this appeal, and that is, were the warrants sued on issued in excess of the income and revenue of Livingston county for the year 1890? or, stated in a different form, did said county become indebted on September 7, 1889, the date of the bridge contract, to the amount of $5,694, or on May 20, 1890, when it issued its 12 warrants to the Clinton Iron & Bridge Company? It is conceded and agreed that the total income and revenue of said county for the year 1890 was $21,283.66, and the warrants issued that year amounted to $26,782.86, and this last sum included the 12 bridge warrants, aggregating $5,694. If the $5,694 is to be deducted from the total amount of warrants, $26,782.86, issued by the county in 1890, then the warrants chargeable against the income and revenue for that year amounted to $21,085.86, a sum less that the total income and revenue, to wit, $21,283.66, and they are a valid indebtedness. On the other hand, if these bridge warrants, to the amount of $5,694, are not to be subtracted, then the warrants for 1890 exceeded the total income and revenue for 1890; and, as the warrants sued on were among the last issued that year, they were in excess of the income and revenue, and plaintiff is not entitled to recover. The simple question then is, when did Livingston county become indebted to the Clinton Bridge Company? In September, 1889, when the county court accepted its bid, and directed the bridge and road commissioner to enter into the contract for the construction of said bridges, and he entered into said contract, or not until it accepted said bridges, and drew its warrants therefor May 20, 1890? If in September, 1889, that indebtedness was not for 1890, and is not to be charged against the revenue provided for 1890, and plaintiff's warrants, issued for indebtedness created in 1890 and within the revenue provided for that year, are valid. The circuit court held that the bridge contract was an indebtedness incurred in 1889, and not in 1890, and that plaintiff's warrants were issued for indebtedness incurred for current expenses in 1890, and were issued within the revenue provided for the year 1890, and plaintiff was entitled to recover. By section 12, art. 10, Const. Mo. 1875 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 287), it is ordained: "No...