Davis v. Hartwig

94 S.W. 507, 195 Mo. 380, 1906 Mo. LEXIS 256
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 30, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 94 S.W. 507 (Davis v. Hartwig) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davis v. Hartwig, 94 S.W. 507, 195 Mo. 380, 1906 Mo. LEXIS 256 (Mo. 1906).

Opinion

LAMM, J. —

Abraham Davis, for himself and any other taxpayers desiring to come in, on the 7th day of September, 1905, filed a bill in equity in the circuit court of Buchanan county, directed against the judges of the Buchanan County Court, the members of the Board of Managers of the State Hospital for Insane No. 2, the treasurer thereof and its superintendent, which bill (omitting the caption) is as follows:

“Plaintiff alleges that he is a lawful citizen and 'taxpayer within and for Buchanan county, Missouri, and that, as such, he brings this action upon his own behalf and on behalf of all other taxpayers similarly situated; that defendants H. R. W. Hartwig, Edgar Sleppy and John H. Duncan are the legally elected, qualified and acting judges of the county court of Buchanan county, Missouri, and as such, have power and authority to issue warrants for the disbursement of the funds of said county, including payments to State Hospital for Insane No. 2 for the purpose of maintaining the insane poor of Buchanan county; that John H. Carey, C. C. Bigger, John S. Major, Samuel Gillum, and P. E. Field are the regularly appointed, qualified and acting board of managers of State Hospital for Insane No. 2 of the State of Missouri, and, as such board of managers, have control and supervision of the affairs of said institution; that defendants James Todd and and Charles R. Woodson are, respectively, the treasurer and superintendent of said State Hospital for Insane No. 2; that the foregoing officers of said institution have exclusive control of all the property, real and personal, belonging to said institution and of the funds paid thereto by the several counties maintaining insane poor therein, including Buchanan county, and in their respective capacities provide for [385]*385the disbursement of said funds and actually disburse the same.
“Plaintiff alleges further that State Hospital for Insane No. 2 is an institution created and erected by the State of Missouri for the care, confinement and treatment of persons of unsound mind, and is governed by the laws of the State of Missouri relating to asylums and eleemosynary institutions; that said institution was originally built and equipped by appropriations made by the State Legislature in the years from 1872i to 1874, and since said time the State has regularly appropriated, from time to time, sufficient funds to pay the salaries of the superintendent and the various sub■ordinate officers- and assistant physicians, and at divers' times since the creation and erection of said institution, the State has, as the demand therefor became urgent, made certain appropriations for the erection and equipment of various additions and enlargements to the buildings and grounds of said institution. In addition thereto various sums of money have, as occasion required, been provided by the State for purchasing furniture and supplies and for repairing the building® and maintaining and improving the grounds of said institution. There are, and were at the time said-institution was built and equipped, in the State of Missouri, and in the territory of said State adjacent to the said institution, a great many persons of unsound mind, who are at the same time in destitute circumstances, and are therefore, public charges upon the several counties in which they reside, or have resided, and, as few if any ■of the counties are provided with the means and equipment for properly confining and treating such persons, the State of Missouri built and equipped said institution for the purpose of better caring for and treating such patients and provided in the law governing it that "the several counties should have the right to send thereto such of their insane poor as were entitled to admis[386]*386sion, and should pay therefor semiannually in cash, in advance, such sums for their support and maintenance as might he necessary, not exceeding two dollars and fifty cents per week for each patient, and in addition thereto the actual cost of their clothing and the expense of removal to and from said institution. In pursuance of the provisions of said law, and in the exercise of the right given by said law, Buchanan county has, by its proper authorities, sent to said institution and now maintains therein more than two hundred patients at a cost to the county and the taxpayers thereof of many thousands of dollars annually, and the money with which said county pays for the support of said patients is taken from the general revenue of the county.
‘ ‘ Plaintiff further states that there are two sources, and only two, from which the aforesaid institution can derive its funds, namely, by appropriations from the State treasury and by payments made by counties or persons who maintain patients in the institution; that under the law it is the duty of the State to provide from its treasury all the funds necessary to build, improve, furnish and equip the institution and prepare and maintain it as an asylum for the mentally afflicted; that under the law it is the duties of the counties, and others maintaining patients therein, to provide and pay to the institution such actual sums as may he necessary to support said patients and pay the salaries of nurses, attendants and other employees, not exceeding the sum of two dollars and fifty cents for each patient; that the money paid to the institution by the several counties maintaining insane patients therein, including Buchanan county, and by individuals who keep and maintain patients therein, is denominated the “ Support Fund,” and under the law said fund must he used exclusively for the support and maintenance of the patients, and cannot be diverted therefrom and used for any other purpose or purposes; that it is the duty of the hoard of managers to ascertain the exact cost of main[387]*387tianing patients in the institution and to include in their account only those necessary items which go to. provide food, attention and necessary running expenses, of the institution, and exclude from their account all other items of whatsoever character.
“Defendants John H. Carey, C. C. Bigger, John S. Major, Samuel Gillum and P. E. Field have, as the board of managers of the institution aforesaid, arbitrarily and without inquiry into the manner in which the money is expended, charged the several counties, including Buchanan county, for the maintenance of their insane poor a figure largely in excess of the amount necessary to keep and maintain said patients, and plaintiff says that the excess over and above the amount required to pay for the support of the said patients is diverted to uses and purposes prohibited by law, to the great detriment of the taxpayers; that said board, instead of examining the expenditures of the said institution, and instead of inquiring into the necessities of the patients therein, to ascertain, as the law requires, the actual amount required to support them, have charged the highest figure allowed by law, to-wit, two dollars and fifty cents per week per patient, and have required Buchanan county to pay the said price of two dollars and fifty cents per week per patient on each and every one of the more than two hundred patients kept by said Buchanan county in said hospital, when the said sum is far in excess of the actual cost of supporting and maintaining said patients, and the exorbitant excess constitutes a large, wasteful and unlawful drain upon the taxpayers of the county.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State of Tennessee v. Jason Lyles
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2015
Hurtgen v. Gasche
227 S.W.2d 494 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1950)
Corken v. Workman
98 S.W.2d 153 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1936)
Honolulu Athletic Park, Ltd. v. Lowry
22 Haw. 475 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1915)
Williams v. School District No. 5
151 S.W. 506 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)
Southwest Missouri Railroad v. Morning Hour Mining Co.
119 S.W. 982 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 S.W. 507, 195 Mo. 380, 1906 Mo. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-hartwig-mo-1906.