Case No. 1205 | Tex. | Jul 1, 1881
The question presented in this case is, Do county warrants bear interest? Or more accurately, Do county warrants bear interest from date? The warrants, to enforce the payment of which Ashe sued, were silent about interest, nor did they specify any particular time of payment. They purported to be issued for amounts allowed and ordered to be paid by the county court, and directed the county treasurer to pay Ashe said amounts. Ashe sued to enforce the payment. The court gave him judgment for the face value of the warrants, but rendered no judgment for interest, and Ashe has brought the case here by writ of error, claiming that he was entitled to interest.
In our opinion, ordinary county warrants, such as we have described, are “ simply directions to the treasurer to pay the amount of money called for,” and are to be read as if they expressed upon their face that they are only to be paid in their order, and on compliance with the laws. San Patricio Co. v. McLane, 44 Tex., 397; Colorado County v. Beethe, id., 450.
All claims against the county should be submitted to the county court, or rather, as it is now styled, the county commissioners’ court; and where allowed by that tribunal, the county warrant issues as evidence of that
The case of Robbins v. Lincoln Co., 3 Mo., 59" court="Mo." date_filed="1831-04-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/neil-v-dillon-6609192?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6609192">3 Mo., 59, is authority for allowing interest after the warrant is presented and payment refused. From a later case, it appears that the subject is regulated in that state by statute; and such may have been the case when Robbins v. Lincoln Co. was decided. State v. Trustees, etc., 61 Mo., 158. Mr. Dillon cites Langdon v. Castleton, 30 Vt., 285" court="Vt." date_filed="1858-02-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/langdon-v-town-of-castleton-6576318?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6576318">30 Vt., 285, as authority for saying Óiat ‘ ‘ the rule in respect to interest on debts against municipal corporations does not ordinarily differ from that which applies to individuals.” That case was an action on a book account, and the opinion discusses the question of interest on such accounts under the law in that state; but, whilst interest was allowed against the county, the subject of municipal liability to pay interest was but little discussed. The other authorities cited by plaintiff in error refer to coupons and bonds, not to warrants.
The supreme court of Pennsylvania and Mississippi each seem to give weight to the fact that, according to custom and the common understanding of the community, interest was not paid on such warrants; and it is believed the same may be said of the usage and general understanding in this state. Ho authority cited by plaintiff in error supports his claim that warrants bear
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
[Opinion delivered at Galveston Term, 1881.]