Boone Cnty. v. Jones

• Citation: 7 N.W. 155,54 Iowa 699
• Parties: BOONE COUNTY v. JONES AND OTHERS.
• Decision Date: 23 October 1880
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

54 Iowa 699

7 N.W. 155

BOONE COUNTY

v.JONES AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed October 23, 1880.

Appeal from Greene circuit court.

On rehearing.

_________, J.

The appellants, in their petition for a rehearing, claim that the court made a mistake in the facts relied upon by the appellee as constituting the ground of estoppel. We have accordingly re-examined the abstract, and have reached a conclusion not essentially different from that reached in the original opinion. The undisputed evidence is, as we understand it, that on the first of January, 1877, Jones was debited with the amount which the previous receipts exceeded the previous payments. Such debit then showed the amount which ought to be in the treasury. The precise language in which the debit entry was made is not shown to us. In the absence of such showing we should not, perhaps, be justified in assuming that the entry expressly purported to show that the money was in the treasury. On account of this fact we have had some doubt as to the effect which should be given to the entry as a ground of estoppel. In Gage v. The City of Chicago, 2 Brad-well, 332, a case strongly relied upon by the appellee, the entries expressly purported to show the “balance in treasury.” We have come to the conclusion, however, that the case at bar is not essentially different. The theory upon which the estoppel is based is that the natural effect of the entry was to mislead the board of supervisors, and lull them into security. Now, inasmuch as the balance carried forward and debited to the treasurer ought to be in the treasury, and would be in the treasury in the absence of defalcation, the natural inference to be drawn from the entry would be that the money was there.

We do not say that it was not the duty of the board of supervisors, at their semi-annual settlement, to count the money and ascertain whether the amount called for by the books was in the treasury. We think such was their duty. Possiby they counted the money and found it there. If so, the sureties are liable. But. conceding that the supervisors were guilty of laches in this respect, we do not think the sureties can escape liablility by reason thereof. They knew that their undertaking prima facie was that their principal would account for all balances carried forward, and that the tendency of such entries *156was to mislead the supervisors and lull them into a false security, if the money called for by the entries was, by...