United States v. Macon County Court Justices and Treasurer

• Decision Date: 23 April 1887
• Docket Number: 107.
• Parties: UNITED STATES ex rel. HUIDEKOPER v. MACON COUNTY COURT JUSTICES AND TREASURER.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

75 F. 259

UNITED STATES ex rel. HUIDEKOPER v. MACON COUNTY COURT JUSTICES AND TREASURER.

No. 107.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

April 23, 1887

Joseph Shippen and Cunningham & Eliot, for relator.

Robert G. Mitchell, for respondents.

BREWER Circuit Judge.

The relator, who has a judgment against Macon county, and registered warrant issued in pursuance of the mandate of this court, now asks two further orders based upon these facts His warrant is drawn upon the general fund. In that fund is a trifle over $14,000. There is a prior registered warrant of seven thousand and odd dollars in favor of the county school fund. At the same time that relator's warrant was registered other warrants were also registered, amounting to about $180,000.

We think, upon these facts, the relator is entitled, as in the first place he prays, to an order on the treasurer to pay to him his pro rata of the surplus in the treasury after paying the school fund warrant. The defendants interpose two objections to this. They say, first, that orders are to be paid in the order of priority of registration, and that no warrant can be paid until it is surrendered to the treasurer. As these warrants were all registered at the same time, it follows that none could be paid until they had accumulated to nearly, if not quite, $200,000. This is absurd. Whenever any reasonable amount has accumulated, it should be distributed and the order of the court is full protection to the officer. Secondly, they say that all this money is needed for current county expenses. But this warrant was registered years ago and the law provides that warrants shall be paid in the order of registration. Further, it appears, as we shall hereafter see, that the county has not levied the full amount that it could have done for county purposes. It may be here remarked in passing, that the division by the county board into separate funds is immaterial, for they all constitute, in fact, simply portions of one general fund.

The county court levied three mills for county purposes. The limit at the date of the issue of the bonds, as well as at the present time, was and is five mills. The relator asks an order for a levy of two mills, the proceeds to be applied to the payment of the several registered warrants. Defendants object that there was a township levy of two mills, and that this was really for county purposes. We think not. The...