Carroll County v. Cheatham
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Chariton Circuit Court. I. In malting the payment relied upon, defendant was acting in pursuance of his previous obligation to pay under the statute — an obligation voluntarily assumed; and if he made the payment contrary to the statute, or to an unauthorized person, he acted at his own peril. Among the county officers selected by the Legislature to manage the school funds (see art. II, p. 1419, R. C. 1855) county attorneys are nowhere to be found.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Chariton Circuit Court. I. In malting the payment relied upon, defendant was acting in pursuance of his previous obligation to pay under the statute — an obligation voluntarily assumed; and if he made the payment contrary to the statute, or to an unauthorized person, he acted at his own peril. Among the county officers selected by the Legislature to manage the school funds (see art. II, p. 1419, R. C. 1855) county attorneys are nowhere to be found. They are not specially mentioned in the statute, and no duties have been assigned them in the premises. The Legislature ignored them…
1Opinion of the CourtCurrier, Judge
The plaintiff sues on three $100 notes given to the county upon the loan of school moneys. The execution of the notes is admitted, and the defendants plead payment in bar of the action. At the trial evidence was given tending to show that the same notes were previously sued upon in an attachment against Cheat-ham, who was the principal in the notes. There was also evidence tending to show that the County Court of Carroll county assented to the notes being placed in the hands of Troxell, the county attorney, for the purposes of such suit, but upon the condition that one of Cheatham’s sureties,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State Ex Rel., Pickett v. TrumanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1933
- Rhinehart v. New Madrid Banking Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- State Ex Rel., Pickett v. TrumanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1933