In re Burris
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Clay Circuit Court. — IIon. Geo. W. Bunn, Judge.. 1. The construction and plain meaning of Sec. 24, Art. 6, logically and grammatically demand that the words “ over that sum,” be held ■ to refer to the previously mentioned sum of $2,500, for the simple reason that there is no other sum mentioned. ■ The direction to pay the surplus over that sum entirely excludes the idea that the court has power to direct the payment of a surplus over a less sum, and forbids the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clay Circuit Court. — IIon. Geo. W. Bunn, Judge.. 1. The construction and plain meaning of Sec. 24, Art. 6, logically and grammatically demand that the words “ over that sum,” be held ■ to refer to the previously mentioned sum of $2,500, for the simple reason that there is no other sum mentioned. ■ The direction to pay the surplus over that sum entirely excludes the idea that the court has power to direct the payment of a surplus over a less sum, and forbids the court to allow the clerk to- retain for bis own use a greater sum than $2,500. The section fixes the standard for the…
1Opinion of the CourtTIenry, J.
— During the year 1875, Luke W. Burris was clerk of the county court of Olay county, and on the 11th day of February, 1876, he filed with said county court a statement of the fees and emoluments received by him as clerk during the year 1875, showing an aggregate of $3,605.46. This statement was finally passed upon by the county court at its November term, 1876, and allowing said clerk $1,500 paid to assistants, and $1,500 for his compensation, ordered him to pay into the county treasury the balance,- $605.46. From this judgment he appealed to the *445circuit court of Clay county, and that court…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. BurgdoerferSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- State v. MullinixSupreme Court of Missouri · 1923
- State ex rel. Circuit Attorney v. FinnMissouri Court of Appeals · 1880
- Opinion No. 146-76 (1976), Missouri Attorney General Reports1976