Bd. of Educ. of the Vill. of Pine Island v. Jewell

• Decision Date: 01 November 1890
• Parties: BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE VILLAGE OF PINE ISLAND v JEWELL ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

44 Minn. 427

46 N.W. 914

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE VILLAGE OF PINE ISLANDvJEWELL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 1, 1890.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. The fact that a school-district treasurer has lost the public funds by burglary, although without his own fault, constitutes no defense to an action on his official bond for the failure to pay over to his successor the money received and not disbursed by him.

2. A vote of the school-district, and of the board of education, without consideration, to discharge the legal obligation of the treasurer, is ineffectual.

Appeal from district court, Goodhue county; MCCLUER, Judge.

F. M. Wilson and W. C. Williston, for appellants.

J. C. McClure, for respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

This action is prosecuted by an independent school-district, organized under chapter 36 of the General Statutes of 1878, to recover on the official bond of a treasurer of the district for moneys which he received, but never paid out nor delivered to his successor in office. The principal ground of the defense is that while the treasurer had the money of the district locked in an iron safe in his place of business, which is to be taken to have been a proper place for keeping such funds, the building was burglariously entered in the night, the safe blown open with gunpowder, and the funds stolen. We are required to pass upon the sufficiency of this defense. The statute (section 107, c. He requires the treasurer to execute a bond with sureties “conditioned for the faithful discharge of his duties as treasurer.” It also declares that the treasurer shall receive, and upon the order of the board pay out, all moneys belonging to the district. He is required to make official statements of the moneys received by him, and of all his disbursements, and to “pay to his successor in office, upon demand, *** all money in his hands belonging to said district.” The bond upon which this action is prosecuted adds to the condition specified in the statute (the faithful discharge of the duties of the office) the further condition, among others, that he “shall, at the expiration of his term of office, pay over to his successor in office all moneys remaining in his hands as treasurer as aforesaid.”

There is some conflict in the decisions as to the responsibility of public officers and their sureties for the loss of public moneys without negligence or fault on the part of the officers. While in some cases the rule of responsibility of bailees for hire has been applied, exonerating officers who have been found guiltless of negligence, this measure of responsibility is not generally accepted. The great weight of authority in this country will sustain the general propositions, with respect to the liability of such officers, and their sureties, for the loss of public moneys, that where the statute in direct terms, or from its general tenor, imposes the duty to pay over public moneys received and held as such, and no condition limiting that obligation is discoverable in the statute, the obligation thus imposed upon and assumed by the officer will be deemed to be absolute, and the plea that the money has been stolen or lost without his fault does not constitute a defense to an action for its recovery; that the rule of responsibility of bailees for hire is not applicable in such cases; that where the condition of a bond is that the officer will faithfully discharge the duties of the office, and where the statute, as before stated, imposes the duty of payment or accountability for the money, without condition, the obligors in the bond are subject to the same high degree of responsibility; and that the reasons upon which these propositions rest are to be found both in the unqualified terms of the contract, and in considerations of public policy. U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. 578;U. S. v. Dashiel, 4 Wall. 182;Boyden v. U. S., 13 Wall. 17;Inhabitants of Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112; Inhabitants of New Providence v. McEachron, 33 N. J. Law, 339, affirmed, 35 N. J. Law, 528; Com. v. Comly, 3 Pa. St. 372; State v. Harper, 6 Ohio St. 607;District Tp. of Taylor v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550;Thompson v. Board, 79 Ill. 99;Halbert v. State, 22 Ind. 125;Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86;Ward v. School-Dist., 10 Neb. 293,4 N. W. Rep. 1001; Wilson v. Wichita Co., 67 Tex. 647, 4 S. W. Rep. 67; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev....