Washington Cnty. ex rel. Sch. Fund of Twp. 36, Range 2 East v. Boyd

• Decision Date: 31 October 1876
• Parties: WASHINGTON COUNTY TO USE OF SCHOOL FUND OF TOWNSHIP 36, RANGE 2 EAST, Plaintiff in Error, v. FRANK BOYD, et al., Defendants in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

64 Mo. 179

WASHINGTON COUNTY TO USE OF SCHOOL FUND OF TOWNSHIP 36, RANGE 2 EAST, Plaintiff in Error,

v.FRANK BOYD, et al., Defendants in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1876.

Error to Washington County Circuit Court.

Philip Pipkin, for Plaintiff in Error.

I. The county court is one of limited jurisdiction, and anything done outside or in excess of the delegated authority is coram non judice and void. (Jefferson Co. vs. Cowan, 54 Mo. 234; Schell vs. Leland, 45 Mo. 289; Smith vs. Howarth, 53 Mo. 88; Miller vs. Seare, 2 Wm. Blacks. 1145; Watson vs. Bodell, 14 Mees. & W. 56; Houldon vs. Smith, 14 Q. B. 841; People vs. Stocking, 50 Barb. 573; 1 Barnw. & Cr. 169; Ray Co. vs. Bentley, 49 Mo. 236; Marion Co. vs. Moffett, 15 Mo. 604; Wagn. Stat. 860, §§ 6, 12; Id. 884, §§ 30, 31; Id. 1269, §§ 85-7; 2 Johns. Cases 49; 1 Stra. 710; 2 Black. 1035; Cowp. 640; 2 Wils. 385; Veal vs. Chariton Co., Ct. 15 Mo. 412; Butler vs. Chariton Co. Ct. 13 Mo. 112.

The petition charges that the county court had no jurisdiction to order an injunction suit to be brought against Martin and others, to stop them from trespassing upon and wasting the timber on said sixteenth section. There is no law authorizing such a proceeding; but on the contrary, ample means were provided by §§ 30, 31, 32, 33, or 34, (Wagn. Stat., 864,) for the recovery of the damages, the prevention of the trespass, etc.

II. Certainly the county court had no authority for taking $563 out of a fund which the laws, and the courts, have always held to be a sacred, perpetual fund.

III. In this case the two judges Boyd and Johnson--a majority of the court-- sat as judges in their own case where they were directly interested. This is forbidden (Wagn. Stat. 441, § 13), and for this reason, if for no other, the action of the court was coram non judice and void, outside of their jurisdiction, and upon the authorities above quoted they are liable.

W. S. Relfe, for Defendants in Error.

It is well settled by the authorities, as well as by statute, that the school funds arising from sales of sixteenth sections are the property of the State, held in trust for the use and benefit of the public schools, and the control thereof delegated to the county courts; and that the people of the townships are the passive recipients of this bounty with no voice as to its control. (Cedar County vs. Johnson, et al., 50 Mo. 226; Township Board of Education vs. Boyd, et al., 58 Mo. 276; Ray Co. vs. Bently, 49 Mo. 236; Reardon vs. St. Louis Co., 36 Mo. 555.)

Thus the county court has a broad, discretionary, and exclusive control which cannot be interfered with; and so far as the court exercises its judgment and discretion bona fide in the case and management of this trust, it is not responsible for results.

In this case the security on Martin's bond had failed, and after repeated notifications they had refused, to give additional security and were working a wholesale destruction of the timber--the the only value the land had. The Martins were reported insolvent, and hence the injunction proceedings. Boyd was one of the sureties on the injunction bond and was compelled to pay it. The court afterward collected $5,446.06, on the Martin bond, the proceeds of sale, and reimbursed Boyd out of it. Surely he was entitled to be indemnified. There is no distinction between their appropriation and payment of this debt from the proceeds of that sale, and their payments of the officers' fees out of it.

In allowing Boyd's claim out of this fund the court acted judicially, and their action, even if erroneous, cannot be questioned by a suit against them personally. There is no corrupt purpose alleged in the petition, nor could any be inferred from its allegations, but to the contrary. (See Schottgen vs. Wilson, 48 Mo. 257, and authorities cited; 1 Denio, 559, cited in Reed vs. Conway, 20 Mo. 52, with kindred authorities; also, see Pike vs. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491, and 21 Pick. 270, a case in point, cited approvingly in 23 Mo. 529; see 45 Mo. 52 as to what is judicial or otherwise; see generally, 21 Pick. 270; Marion Co. vs. Moffett, 15 Mo. 606; Ray Co. vs. Bently, 49 Mo. 236; Th. Bd. Ed. 36, R. 2 E. vs. Boyd, et al., 58 Mo. 276; Cedar County vs. Johnson, 50 Mo. 227.)

HENRY, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

In November, 1868, and for a long time prior thereto, the defendants were justices of the county court of Washington county. Robert N. and William C. Martin had purchased the sixteenth section of township 36, range 2 east, for which they had with sureties executed their bond to the county for about five thousand dollars; and at the November term, 1868, of said county court, an order was made by said court directing a suit to be instituted in behalf of said county to the use of said township against said Robert N. and William C. Martin and others, to enjoin them from cutting and wasting the timber on said land.

The defendants, Boyd and Johnson, with D. E. Perryman and Harvey S. Hutchinson, in behalf of said county for the benefit of said township, executed the bond required by the statute in such cases, and at the April term of the circuit court of Washington county the injunction was by the court dissolved, and damages assessed against the makers of said bond at five hundred dollars, and judgment rendered against them for that sum and $63.08 costs, which was paid by defendant Boyd. At the November term, 1870, of said county court, the purchase money for said land, $5,446.90, having been paid, the court made an order upon the treasurer of said county to pay to said Boyd, out of the purchase money so received, $563.08 so paid by him on said judgment, and this suit is brought to recover the money so paid to Boyd from the defendants, the members of said county court.

The petition substantially states the foregoing facts, and charges that the order upon the treasurer was wilfully, illegally and knowingly made.

There was a demurrer to the petition, which, being sustained, plaintiff has brought the case here by writ of error.

There is no fraud alleged against the defendant, nor is there any allegation that the suit instituted against the Martins was recklessly undertaken, or that it was productive of no good results to the township for whose benefit it was commenced; and the only question presented by the record for consideration, necessary to notice, is the legality of the action of the court in reimbursing Boyd out of the funds of the township.

The principal proposition discussed in the appellant's brief is, that the county court is a court of limited jurisdiction and anything done in excess of its jurisdiction is coram non judice and void.

We may admit the general proposition, but insist that it has no application to this case.

It has been repeatedly held by this court, that there is nothing judicial in the functions exercised by the court in regard to these school lands. (Ray Co. to use, &c. vs. Bently, et al., 49 Mo., 236; Town Board of Education, etc. vs. Boyd, et al., 58 Mo. 279; Cedar Co. vs. Johnson, et al., 50 Mo. 227; Marion Co. vs. Moffet, 15 Mo. 406.)

In the case in 15 Mo. supra, Judge Scott said, “The school lands were vested in the State in trust for the benefit of the inhabitants of the township in which they are respectively situated. The State vested in the county court the management of this trust. Those courts are the agents...