Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Perkins v. Burks, 78 S.W.2d 845 (1934)

Citation
Perkins v. Burks, 78 S.W.2d 845 (1934)
Parent Document
Perkins v. Burks, 78 S.W.2d 845 (1934)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1934-12-21

Full Text

2,126 chars
In the Rose case, however, the question was not concerning a salary fixed in amount by law, but mandamus was there brought to compel payment of a bill of the local registrar of vital statistics of the State Board of Health whose pay was provided by statute as twenty-five cents for each birth and death certificate. This necessarily raised a fact question, namely, the actual number of births and deaths occurring and the computation of the total amount due therefor. This court held that the county court had the right and the duty to audit the claim to determine its correctness and, in case of a disagreement about it, to demand that the matter should be decided by the courts either by the suit against the county or by a continuation of the matter before it by the appeal method provided by statute. While the county court in passing upon such claims does not act in a judicial capacity, but acts merely in an administrative capacity, nevertheless, it is exercising discretion given to it, for the purpose of protecting the county from unjust or incorrect claims, which is not subject to control by mandamus. [For a discussion of the powers and duties of the county court in auditing and settling demands against the county see Jackson County v. Fayman,329 Mo. 423, 44 S.W.2d 849. For other cases holding that mandamus is not a proper remedy to compel the payment of an account when there is a fact issue to be determined see Mansfield v. Fuller, 50 Mo. 338; Ward v. Cole County Court, 50 Mo. 401; State ex rel. Patterson v. Marshall, 82 Mo. 484; State ex rel. Carroll v. County Court of Cape Girardeau County, 109 Mo. 248, 19 S.W. 23; State ex rel. Langston v. Huston (Mo. App.), 41 S.W.2d 194; State ex rel. Brunjes v. Linville (Mo.), 8 S.W.2d 623.] However, here, there was no disputed fact question; both the census and the total vote at the 1928 presidential election which determined Perkins' salary under the respective contentions of the parties were facts already *Page 254 
determined by public officers of which a court would even take judicial notice. [Cartwright v. McDonald County, 319 Mo. 848,5 S.W.2d 54.]