Skinner v. Platte County
Supreme Court of Missouri
•Appeal from Platte Circuit Court. The case sufficiently appears in the opinion of the court. insisted that the allowance was a judgment, or at least such a settlement of accounts that it bore interest from its date. (R. C. 1845, tit. Interest.) 1. Judgments at common law do not bear interest. (4 McCord, '212.) 2. The allowance is not a judgment within section 3d of the act regulating interest; nor is it a “settlement of accounts” within the 1st section of said act.
Read the full summary
•Appeal from Platte Circuit Court. The case sufficiently appears in the opinion of the court. insisted that the allowance was a judgment, or at least such a settlement of accounts that it bore interest from its date. (R. C. 1845, tit. Interest.) 1. Judgments at common law do not bear interest. (4 McCord, '212.) 2. The allowance is not a judgment within section 3d of the act regulating interest; nor is it a “settlement of accounts” within the 1st section of said act. County warrants bear no interest until they have been presented at the treasury and payment has been refused. (Robins v. Lincoln…
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, Judge
The question here is, will an allowance against a county in favor of an individual bear interest before the warrant against the county has been presented to the county treasurer for payment, and the treasurer’s endorsement thereon, showing that payment was not made because there were no funds in the treasury to pay the demand ? We think not. In order to draw interest, the warrant for the allowance must be made out and presented for payment to the treasurer; if he has funds to pay with, he pays the warrant without interest; if he has no funds to pay with, “ he shall so certify on the back of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State ex rel. Jeffries v. Trustees of Town of PacificSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Donnelly v. City of BrooklynNew York City Court · 1889