*1 city tending show that to no directs attention evidence any way either with said the enrollment connected by the by the or with the services furnished city children schools Furthermore, such evidence city we find no schools to said children. applica- without equitable estoppel is in the record. The doctrine of city cites State ex Consolidated tion the facts of this case. The Haid, (2d) 41 S. W. School of Pike District point on the facts. 806. That case All is so concur. judgment be reversed. ordered. should' Casualty Motley, Agent York In for the New of J. M. the Matter Callaway Casualty Company, and The New York Company, v. Appellant. Municipal Corporation, County, 875. One, April

Division *2 appellant. for A. Faueeti and T. Larrikin Henry M.C. Baker

Glover Howell and <&Baker respondents. HYDE, proceeding $600 premium C. This is a to collect a for the year County 1940 on County rejected Collector’s bond. The Court appeal payment; judg- to and Court, trial in the Circuit ment was entered appealed. which has is contended on behalf Act, that Section 1 ap- proved (Laws April 1937. p. concerning premiums, void, unconstitutional and because in conflict with Section 3 of Article 10 of the Constitution. (now This section Sec. K. 3939), so far applicable as

countv is as follows: "Whenever . any . . any state, of this or any deputy, appointee, agent employee any or . such officer . . shall state, by law charter, this or by ordinance or resolution, by any or any order state, into enter any official bond, or bond, other may he elect, with the consent and approval , governing body of such . . . . surety surety company or surety bond, bonds, with or into enter of Missouri

companies, authorized to do business body pro- by every paid bond shall be such cost ’’ thereby. tected following order: County Court, January 2, entered the by considered, -adjudged “It and decreed Court therefore hereby Stanley Creed, aforesaid, be and that said Collector as he Revenue purchase authorized to his official bond as said Collector $75,000.00 Surety Company Corporation, amount of from a authorized and chartered to sell bonds in the State of Missouri County, Missouri, Callaway provided cost 1937, provided page Section of the Missouri Session Acts of subject approval said bonds shall be to the Court.” plaintiff Company approved bond furnished order February 28, entered 1939. It recited that it covered a term of office *3 years ensuing day of “four March, next the of 1939.” A warrant first court, $600, was then payment issued order of in the the of year’s premium year first for the 1939. The collector included the item premium Budget $600 of for the 1940 in his 1940 Estimate but Court pay refused to bill in presented therefor March

Defendant’s constitutional contention is that the 1937 Act “is unconstitutional for the taking reason that it public is funds for private purposes and in 3, is conflict with Section Article Constitution of 46-47, State of Missouri.” also Sections [See Art. says always “the law required county has col 4.] lectors in give bond; the state to and if a given, commercial bond be pay to for it themselves;” that it private undertaking is “a pro to public funds;” tect and that “the private collector is a enter prise in collecting taxes, for which salary.” he a It is true that under the monarchical form government, ment of the common law in England, “public early of in develop regarded officeswere incorporeal as hereditaments and subjects private of property.” [46 C. J. 28; see, sec. also, 22 R. L.C. sec. But under our 7.1 form government an office a “is privilege gift in the of the state and depends the favor of the people;” public and it a “is trust” be cause “it is created in the interest and for the public.” benefit-of the R. [22 C. L. 376-378,secs. (or is not compensation thereof) 8-10] subject a grant any or contract of person [State or officer. ex Rothrum Darby, 1002, 137 (2d)W. system The,fee 532.] of compensation (payment of fees for each service rendered an officer) goes back origin in its early to the common law view of an office private property. Tt increasingly has recognized been country good that this is not a system democracy for a under representative government. a form tendency The modern has, therefore, been put to basis, our Federal and a salary officers on officers public furnish used to long been Public funds have supplies. office postage stamps, stationery, space, with office A is “in effect surely analagous. bond furnishing bonds matter officer, an security performance” faithful for the merely collateral public protect in order to any event, duty public in he owes the many bonds have Personal L. sec. from R. C. loss. [22 unnecessary to it disadvantages deficiencies, which known taking the results notice of Legislature, no doubt discuss here. during periods, considered depression of some these recent funds give public to protection could better company bonds custody It, therefore, authorized such public officers. to and the if the officer elected furnish it bond for officers an recognized require approved it. It also to reducing pay premiums officer to therefor would have the effect compensation. approval actual net So when consent and for the his purchase expense given to a bond at in ad public officer such was body protected,” “the it public pay vance to payment No ever cost. one has contended that to salaries of requiring they instead them to collect fees from those whom service, render a public purpose. is not We see no difference principle of public between the use funds in of officers’ authorizing pay salaries and their premiums, use to bond instead requiring pay officer himself; these private to beseech other guarantee citizens to personally his faithful performance. It will always in the public interest to create situation in which may be placed greater obligations under pri certain (who vate citizens bond) furnish his public generally. than *4 least, At think it is we within the discretion authority and of the Legislature say which to the public best policy. In State ex rel. Louis, Crow v. St. 174 Mo. 125, 73 S. W. 61 A. L. it R. held was that an ordinance for a public was purpose “only which appropriates expense a public the that officer paid, incurred and in while discharge duty of the his officer, as such removing in public nuisance from highway, the which expressly the law do, him city to and which the was under obligation to its to citizens do.” The pointed court out therein after instances expense in curred an officer in performance the duty his might which properly of public out funds. county Here the was obligated by the laws of this State to see public that funds were protected by a proper bond, and the collector required by was law to furnish a sufficient bond. The only 1937 Act authorized the county to make agreement an for type this of bond, and, if it did so in advance, pay to for it when it was furnished. recent deci [For sions question the what is a purpose see State ex rel. Gilpin v. Smith, 339 Mo. 194, 96 S. W. (2d) 40; State City ex rel. Excelsior Springs v. Smith, 336 Mo. 1104, 82 (2d) 37; State 1022 367; 825, 74 W. S. Mo. City v. of Hannibal ex Smith 979; (2d)W. 173, 58 332 Mo. S. City Louis, Jennings of St. v. City, v. Kansas City Agents Assn. Ins. Kansas ex rel. un is not the hold that statute We (2d)W. 386, 4 S.

Mo. ground. upon this constitutional any other rely upon plead did not answer Defendant’s the contend that further Defendant does section the Constitution. that provide law “because said does is unconstitutional statute proportionate county pay its and state should of the each subdivision fact a matter of . . when as question in . part premium of the county county fund, county revenue, road state, protects the bond the fund, road special jail bond and interest hospital, courthouse and special other Special (and Road bridge fund, Fulton District- and County of in said districts), and 105 different school districts road pro- which Callaway.” provision cites no constitutional unjust to inequitable and says unfair, this, hibits “that it is but general rev- respondents’ out of the premium the of the bond take argument county.” noted “the plaintiff, the As enue fund of against the against premium could be used payment used the of this against making books, the county for tax payment of the clerk’s fees salary funds, the paying treasurer’s the custodian county the members compensation the of the of the county’s looking see no constitutional after the business.” We county from payment of the of a bond obstacle to the cost officer’s county, and, therefore, hold general that revenue fund the authority Legislature. within assignment makes “are not plaintiffs Defendant also real no of contract existed parties privity interest because respondents appellant between which to base cause ’’ county obligated statute, party pay action. Under the was surety company bond, the cost of this under circumstances (when the requirement case. No is made that obtaining surety company bond) consents advance to obligated must pay premium pay first before the it. Likewise, ultimately premium plaintiffs due directly pay premium plaintiffs. did the first R. Section (sec. Ann. provides “every Stat. action shall prosecuted party real the name of the in interest.” Defendant only longer being Manny cites old no followed; cases the latest *5 Administrators, 419, Frasier’s 27 by Mo. overruled Salmon Falls Leyser, 51, Bank v. 77, 116 Mo. c. 22 l. S. W. l. c. It long has person been settled that a express for whose benefit an promise may, made statute, contract between others under this sue his own Harrison, name. 198; 16 [Ellis Stinde, Crone v. 863; Mo. 55 W. Binswanger S. v. Employers’ W. Ltd., 224 28 S. App. Mo. Liability Corp., Assur. assignment and it is overruled. in this

We find no merit that the court erro the further contention makes Jan Court order of neously against claim that the found its bond, procured authorizing purchase uary 2, 1939, county alleged that the members of fraud. Defendant’s answer county officers, attorney employed court were misled they know knowledge they stated relied without superior whose interests; and asked that ing representing it was he was adverse binding and county, and on the the order declared void happened canceled decree. contention was based on what This meeting at a the new of the court with the other members attorney’s officers their 1938 elec at office soon after the November tion, commenced, office had before their terms more than month before order was made. The Chancellor heard tes timony attorney of the officers their and of the members meeting what court as to occurred at this and found appears defendant’s claim. the members the court were told, meeting when asked to attend the “they the other wanted Mr. Baker to make a bonds;” talk to us about the that the times; Act was read them several and that the members of expressed the court preference surety company bonds. It seems apparent the substance of the discussion was that the officers only would furnish bonds if the paid the costs and that this should be done if the court wanted such A bonds. careful reading testimony convinces us that there only was not sub stantial evidence to support finding attorney’s good faith (there was testimony that Mr. Baker said it mandatory was not buy the court to bonds), but that there could be little more than sur mise and suspicion upon which to base a claim of fraud. We, there fore, accept finding of the Chancellor. No questions, as right of the County Court require a new or (see different bond provisions Chapter 16, 1939), R. S. procedure or as to under the county budget (see law Chapter 73, R. presented by are the pleadings at the or assignments trial on appeal. The judgment is affirmed. Bradley Dalton, CC., concur.

PER CURIAM: The foregoing opinion by Hyde, C., is adopted opinion as the court. All judges concur.