Tobin v. Township of Emmetsburg
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Palo Alto District Court. Action for mandamus. The plaintiff is the holder of an order issued by the township cleric of the township of Emmetsbnrg, under the direction of the township trustees. The order was issued to one O’Connell, who was at that time, and had been for. some years, road supervisor in the township, and was given in pursuance of a settlement between him and the trustees.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Palo Alto District Court. Action for mandamus. The plaintiff is the holder of an order issued by the township cleric of the township of Emmetsbnrg, under the direction of the township trustees. The order was issued to one O’Connell, who was at that time, and had been for. some years, road supervisor in the township, and was given in pursuance of a settlement between him and the trustees. The defendant M. Joynt is the present township cleric, and the defendants Charles Gibbs, Daniel Kane and James Scott are the present township trustees. Demand has been made upon the defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.
The defendants insist, in the first place, that such an order is receivable only in payment of highway taxes, and is not payable out of highway funds.
That such order shall be receivable in payment of highway taxes is expressly provided in section 997 of the Code. But no express provision, it is said, is made for its payment in money, and so it is argued that it was not contemplated that the order should be paid in money.
The statute authorizes the issuance of such an order, section 997 above cited. A money order is -a direction to pay money. We cannot think that the statute was designed to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bradley & Nicoulin v. LoveSupreme Court of Iowa · 1888
- Wells v. GrubbSupreme Court of Iowa · 1882
- Howegler v. GreinerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1893