County of St. Louis v. Sparks
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. While the matter remained in the County Court, it was not a suit or action between parties. It was a proceeding required by statute, as the official duty of the County Court to settle the accounts of a public officer, and in a certain event to enter judgment against him. R. C. 1835, p. 151, tit. County Treasuries, art. 2; see 9 Mo.
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. While the matter remained in the County Court, it was not a suit or action between parties. It was a proceeding required by statute, as the official duty of the County Court to settle the accounts of a public officer, and in a certain event to enter judgment against him. R. C. 1835, p. 151, tit. County Treasuries, art. 2; see 9 Mo. R., 118, Tetherow vs. County of Grundy. 2. The officer though he might feel ever so much aggrieved by the judgment of the County Court, could not remove the cause to a higher court by appeal. The appeal is in no case a matter of…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
This was a proceeding under the second and following sections of the second article of the act concerning County Treasuries; Rev. Code 18B5, page 151, begun by the County Court of St. Louis county against John Sparks, the collector of said county, who failed to settle his accounts with the County Court according to law. The time during which Sparks was in the receipt of revenue for which it was alleged, that he *203failed to account, was from the 16th March, 1844, to the 20th April of the same year. The County Court adopted as the basis of the settlement, the sum received for the corresponding…
2Cited by9 opinions
- In re the Disbarment of BurnetteSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- Lacy v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- McVey v. McVeySupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- State ex rel. Wallace v. BakerSupreme Court of Florida · 1882
- State ex rel. Powell v. ShockleeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.