Campbell v. Polk County
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court. I. The liability of the county is general, and is not restricted by the warrant being payable out of a particular fund.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court. I. The liability of the county is general, and is not restricted by the warrant being payable out of a particular fund. (Ubsdell & Pierson v. Cunningham, 22 Mo. 124; Terry v. Milwaukee, 15 Wis. 490; Savage v. Supervisors of Crawford County, 10 Wis. 49 ; id. 73 ; Lyell v. Supervisors Lapier County, 6 M. L. 446 ; Paddock v. Symonds et al., 11 Barb. 117; Young v. Camden, 19 Mo. 309; Campbell v. The County of Polk, 3 Iowa, 467; Clark v. Des Moines, 19 Iowa, 199.) II. There was no such fund as the one on which the warrant was drawn. Campbell’s only remedy, then, is…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
The plaintiff, as assignee, sued Polk county on a warrant drawn on the “internal improvement fund.” Upon the trial of the case it was proven that there was no internal improvement fund; that it had been exhausted; and upon this evidence the court found for and gave judgment for the defendant. The District Court affirmed this judgment.
The plaintiff was not entitled to recover on this warrant, as it was to be paid out of a specific fund which had been exhausted. The principles laid down by this court in Kingsberry v. Pettis County, 17 Mo. 479, are applicable to this case. In the case *216referred…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pettis County v. KingsburySupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
3Cited by14 opinions
- State ex rel. Watkins v. Macon County CourtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Herring v. Modesto Irr. Dist.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1899
- Travelers' Ins. Co. v. City of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1888
- Montieth v. Great Western Printing Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Cook v. Putnam CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.