Bd. of Com'rs of Huntington Cnty. v. Beaver
| Decision Date | 17 April 1901 |
| Citation | 156 Ind. 450,60 N.E. 150 |
| Parties | BOARD OF COM'RS OF HUNTINGTON COUNTY v. BEAVER. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Whitley county; Joseph W. Adair, Judge.
Action by Henry Beaver against the board of commissioners of Huntington county. From a judgment of the circuit court in favor of plaintiff on appeal from a decision of the board of county commissioners, defendant appeals. Reversed.Kenner & Lesh, for appellant. Marshall, McNagny & Clugston, Whitelock & Cook, and James C. Branyan, for appellee.
It appears from the record that Daniel Christian served as treasurer of Huntington county for two terms, of two years each,-from 1876 to 1880. During his terms of office he received $12,000, the proceeds of the sale of bonds for the construction of a free gravel road, but he never charged himself with the same, or accounted therefor while in office, or paid the same over to his successor. He was succeeded by Joseph Stults, who served one term,-from November 13, 1880, to November 13, 1882. Appellee, Beaver, was elected treasurer in November, 1882, for two years, commencing November 13, 1882, and was re-elected in 1884 for two years, commencing November 13, 1884. The gravel road on account of which the bonds were sold and the $12,000 received by Christian as county treasurer was built and paid for by warrants and orders out of the county fund. In 1883 Christian became alarmed in regard to his defalcation, and notified the county auditor and appellee, who was then treasurer, that he was chargeable with said $12,000 which he had never accounted for. The county auditor, with the knowledge and consent of appellee, on the records in the auditor's office, increased the balance on hand as shown by the settlement of 1882 $808.70, and charged two items as follows: “To balance turnpike fund on hand June 1st, 1882, $5,812.80;” “To balance gravel-road fund on hand June 1, 1882, $5,378.80;” total, $12,000,-all of which entries were shown in the annual settlement of 1883. It was intended by these entries to charge appellee with the $12,000 received by Christian for the gravel-road bonds sold by him and not before accounted for. Said Christian paid over to appellee, as such treasurer, money at different times until the full sum of $12,000 was paid. Prior to 1885 no separate account was kept of the various funds with which the county treasurer was charged, but the treasurer was charged with his receipts of all kinds, and credited with his disbursements of all kinds. The total disbursements were taken from the total receipts to ascertain the balance on hand, thus treating all the money received and paid out as one fund. In 1885, however, the system of bookkeeping was changed, and the funds in the treasurer's hands separated, and a ledger account made of each fund. The annual settlements of 1885 and 1886 were made under this new system. In July, 1886, after the annual settlement of 1886, appellee claimed that he was charged twice in the annual settlements of 1885 and 1886 with said sum of $12,000 received from said Christian; that he had on hand and not accounted for $12,000 less money belonging to said county than was shown by said annual settlements; that said three items, amounting to $12,000, charged in 1883, were carried forward and into the annual settlements of 1885 and 1886, and by the separation of said funds he was again charged with said sum in the gravel-road fund of the road on account of which said bonds were sold. To obtain a correction of said alleged mistake, he filed an application before the board of commissioners, asking a credit for said charges made against him in annual settlement of 1883, and carried into the subsequent annual settlements as an overcharge of $12,000. This application was heard by said board of commissioners and denied at their September session of 1886. Appellee appealed from the decision to the Huntington circuit court. Appellee's term of office as county treasurer expired November 12, 1886, and he paid over to his successor in office all the funds in his hands as such treasurer unaccounted for as shown by the annual settlement of 1886, after charging himself with the amounts received since the date of that settlement, and taking credit with the disbursements made by him up to the expiration of his term, except $12,000. He refused to account for and pay over said sum for the reason that the same was an overcharge in the annual settlements, for which he was asking and was entitled to a credit as set forth in his application to the board of commissioners. Afterwards, in 1887, upon the order of appellant, as provided in section 6506, Rev. St. 1881, the prosecuting attorney brought an action in the Huntington circuit court against appellee and his sureties on his official bond as such treasurer, in the name of the state, on the relation of the auditor of said county. Appellee and his sureties in their second paragraph of answer alleged specifically the same mistake of $12,000 in said annual settlements, as presented by appellee's application before the board of commissioners, which was then pending in the Huntington circuit court on appeal. It was averred in said paragraph that appellee was charged twice with the sum of $12,000, and that the same was erroneous,and setting forth specifically how the mistake was made, and the manner in which appellee claimed he was charged twice with said amount, and that he fully accounted for and paid over to his successor all funds remaining in his hands at the expiration of his term of office. To this paragraph of answer a general denial was filed. The venue of said cause was changed to the Grant circuit court, where the same was heard by the court, a special finding of facts made, and conclusions of law stated thereon, and judgment rendered December 8, 1888, for the sum of $12,000, together with interest and penalty, which amounted in all to $14,110. From this judgment an appeal was taken by appellee and his sureties to the supreme court, where the same was affirmed April 11, 1890. Beaver v. State, 124 Ind. 324, 24 N. E. 242. The trial court in said case found and adjudged that appellee was never charged in any of his annual settlements or in the records with the sum of $12,000 received from Christian, except by the said three fictitious items in his annual settlement of 1883; the same being carried into the subsequent settlements as balance on hand. After said judgment was affirmed in this court, the proceedings brought by appellee before appellant to correct the alleged errors in his annual settlements were still pending on appeal in the Huntington circuit court. On application of appellee the venue was changed to the court below. Appellant filed an answer of former adjudication, setting up the trial of the same question in the suit on appellee's official bond, and a judgment rendered thereon against appellee. To this answer appellee filed a reply. The cause was tried by the court, a special finding of facts made, and conclusions of law stated thereon in favor of appellee. The question tried by the court was whether or not appellee was charged twice in the annual settlement of 1886 with the sum of $12,000 received from Christian,-once by virtue of the three fictitious items in the annual settlement of 1883, which was carried into the subsequent annual settlements, and again on account of the new system of keeping account of the different funds adopted in 1885. The issue was the same as that tried by the court in the action on the official bond of appellee in the Grant circuit court and affirmed in this court. The court found that appellee was charged twice with said amount of $12,000 received from said Christian in the annual settlements of 1885 and 1886. The court also found that in the suit in the name of the state, on relation of the county auditor, against appellee and his sureties on his official bond, appellee filed an answer alleging the same mistake in regard to said $12,000 as presented in this case; that the issues in said cause were tried by the court, and “a judgment rendered against the defendants therein for $14,110; and that appellee was not entitled to a credit for the false and erroneous items aggregating $12,000, but that said items represented the $12,000, proceeds of the gravel-road bonds.” The conclusion of law stated was that appellee was entitled to have his annual settlement of 1886 corrected so as to show a credit of $12,000. Over a motion for a new trial, the court rendered judgment that “the annual settlement of 1886 be corrected so as to show a credit of $12,000 in favor of appellee, in addition to the credits given to him in said settlement, so as to show that the balance of county funds in his hands as such treasurer at the date of said report was in truth and fact $12,000 less than the balance shown to be in his hands by said report; that said additional credit is given plaintiff [appellee] for the false and erroneous charges made against him in favor of defendant [appellant] in the annual settlement of 1883, which was carried into and made a part of the annual settlements of 1884, 1885, 1886, and which false and erroneous charges, to the extent of said $12,000, were subsequently collected of and from the plaintiff.” The conclusion of law and the action of the court in overruling the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial