Bd. of Com'rs of Ramsey Cnty. v. Sullivan

• Decision Date: 27 February 1903
• Citation: 89 Minn. 68,93 N.W. 1056
• Parties: BOARD OF COM'RS OF RAMSEY COUNTY v. SULLIVAN et al. BOARD OF COM'RS OF RAMSEY COUNTY v. JOHNSON et al. (two cases).
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

89 Minn. 68

93 N.W. 1056

BOARD OF COM'RS OF RAMSEY COUNTY

v.SULLIVAN et al.

BOARD OF COM'RS OF RAMSEY COUNTY

v.JOHNSON et al. (two cases).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 27, 1903.

Appeals from district court, Ramsey county; Chas. E. Otis, Judge.

Actions by the Board of County Commissioners of Ramsey County against Dennis M. Sullivan and others and William R. Johnson and others. From an order overruling demurrers to each complaint, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The sureties upon a county auditor's bond are liable for the acts of his deputy who fraudulently issues fictitious redemption and refundment orders for the purpose of obtaining money from the county treasurer by means thereof.

2. The action against the sureties may be brought by the county in the name of the Board of County Commissioners. D. W. Lawler and R. E. Olds, for appellants Dennis M. Sullivan and others.

Arthur J. Stobbart and Stevens, O'Brien, Cole & Albrecht, for appellants the National Security Co. and others.

F. W. Zollman and M. D. Munn, for appellants Wm. R. Johnson and others.

T. R. Kane and O. H. O'Neil, for appellee Board of Com'rs of Ramsey County.

LEWIS, J.

These actions were brought against the county auditor of Ramsey county and the sureties upon his bond to recover the amounts alleged to have been paid by the county upon certain fraudulent redemption and refunding orders issued by W. B. Bourne while deputy auditor. Each complaint alleged that, while acting as deputy auditor, Bourne made out certain fictitious redemption orders upon the county treasurer, purporting to be drawn in favor of actual persons who were entitled to refundment of money claimed to have been paid into the county treasury for the redemption of land from tax sales; that the whole scheme was a fraud; that the persons to whom the orders purported to have been issued were not purchasers at tax sales, and were not entitled to any redemption money, and that the same were issued and put in circulation for the purpose of defrauding the county; that he represented them to be genuine warrants, and they were duly presented and paid by the treasurer, who believed them to be valid, either to persons in whose names they were drawn or to persons unknown. The complaints also state that Bourne in like manner created certain fictitious refundment orders, and fraudulently caused the same to be indorsed by the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, and presented and paid by the county treasurer, who believed them genuine. A demurrer was interposed to each complaint upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and appeal was taken from the order overruling the demurrer.

1. These actions were properly brought by the county and in the name of the Board of County Commissioners by virtue of sections 638, 640, and 643, Gen. St. 1894. The provisions of sections 710, 5952, and 5953 are cumulative and not necessarily inconsistent remedies. This question was...