Bradford v. State, 8 Div. 212
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | BROWN, J. |
| Citation | 204 Ala. 46,85 So. 435 |
| Parties | BRADFORD, County Superintendent of Education, et al. v. STATE. |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 212 |
| Decision Date | 18 December 1919 |
85 So. 435
204 Ala. 46
BRADFORD, County Superintendent of Education, et al.
v.
STATE.
8 Div. 212
Supreme Court of Alabama
December 18, 1919
Rehearing Denied Jan. 29, 1920
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.
Bill by the State of Alabama against W.E. Bradford, as County Superintendent of Education, and the sureties on his official bond, to recover an amount alleged to have been misappropriated by Bradford of the public funds coming into his hands by virtue of his office, with ancillary writ of attachment. From a decree granting the relief prayed, respondents appeal. Affirmed. [85 So. 436.]
Goodhue & Brindley, of Gadsden, for appellants.
J.Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lawrence E. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
BROWN, J.
On the former appeal from the decree of the court overruling the demurrers to the bill, it was ruled that the state was authorized by the statutes to sue for the recovery of school funds misappropriated or converted by the county treasurer of public school funds coming into his hands by virtue of his office or under color thereof, whether the funds belonged to the county or were state funds set apart to the public schools of the county. Bradford et al. v. State, 201 Ala. 170, 77 So. 696.
While section 2445 of the Code of 1907 authorizes the institution of the suit "in a court of equity without the statement or assignment of any special cause for equitable interference," and authorizes the joinder of the sureties on the official bond, or any one or more of them, as parties, section 2449 authorizes a trial by jury on the demand of the defendants, and provides that "the verdict of the jury shall have the force and effect of a verdict in a court of law." Therefore, if it should be conceded that, without such provisions, the statute would impinge the constitutional guaranty of the right of trial by jury, the appellants' contention in this respect is answered by the statute itself.
The next contention advanced is that the facts--which are without dispute--show the school funds misappropriated and squandered by Bradford did not come into his hands by virtue of his office or under color thereof; and therefore the sureties on his official bond are not liable. This contention is rested on the failure of the auditor to require compliance with section 1771 of the Code, by the filing with him of a duplicate pay roll, verified by the county superintendent and approved by the state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Inman, 8 Div. 33.
...or expenses thereof and to order the state auditor to draw a warrant on the treasury." Bradford v. State, 201 Ala. 170, 77 So. 696; Id., 204 Ala. 46, 85 So. 435; Young v. City of Tuscumbia, 217 Ala. 683, 117 So. 306; National Surety Co. v. State et al., 219 Ala. 609, 123 So. 202. The statut......
-
Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster, 6 Div. 950
...bond in the absence of the principal indicated in such bond. Section 2612, Code; Bradford v. State, 201 Ala. 170, 77 So. 696; Id., 204 Ala. 46, 85 So. 435; Fite v. Pearson, 215 Ala. 521, 111 So. 15. The provisions of section 5718 (Gen Acts of 1915, p. 605) and those of section 9513 of the C......
-
Pickett v. Richardson, 1 Div. 671.
...and receive the money. Such was declared to be a test in National Surety Co. v. State, 219 Ala. 609, 123 So. 202; Bradford v. State, 204 Ala. 46, 85 So. 435. Was then the justice of the peace authorized to appoint a special constable to execute process under the certain contingencies? The s......
-
Edwards v. State, 7 Div. 523
...Ala. 153, 82 So. 183; Glover v. State, 205 Ala. 446, 88 So. 437; Byles v. State, 205 Ala. 286, 87 So. 856; Bowling v. State, 204 Ala. 405, 85 So. 435; Echl v. State. 205 Ala. 466, 88 So. 567; Fearn v. State, 205 Ala. 478, 88 So. 591; Briscoe v. State, 204 Ala. 231, 85 So. 475. The foregoing......
-
State v. Inman, 8 Div. 33.
...expenses thereof and to order the state auditor to draw a warrant on the treasury." Bradford v. State, 201 Ala. 170, 77 So. 696; Id., 204 Ala. 46, 85 So. 435; Young v. City of Tuscumbia, 217 Ala. 683, 117 So. 306; National Surety Co. v. State et al., 219 Ala. 609, 123 So. 202. The stat......
-
Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster, 6 Div. 950
...bond in the absence of the principal indicated in such bond. Section 2612, Code; Bradford v. State, 201 Ala. 170, 77 So. 696; Id., 204 Ala. 46, 85 So. 435; Fite v. Pearson, 215 Ala. 521, 111 So. 15. The provisions of section 5718 (Gen Acts of 1915, p. 605) and those of section 9513 of the C......
-
Pickett v. Richardson, 1 Div. 671.
...and receive the money. Such was declared to be a test in National Surety Co. v. State, 219 Ala. 609, 123 So. 202; Bradford v. State, 204 Ala. 46, 85 So. 435. Was then the justice of the peace authorized to appoint a special constable to execute process under the certain contingencies? The s......
-
Edwards v. State, 7 Div. 523
...Ala. 153, 82 So. 183; Glover v. State, 205 Ala. 446, 88 So. 437; Byles v. State, 205 Ala. 286, 87 So. 856; Bowling v. State, 204 Ala. 405, 85 So. 435; Echl v. State. 205 Ala. 466, 88 So. 567; Fearn v. State, 205 Ala. 478, 88 So. 591; Briscoe v. State, 204 Ala. 231, 85 So. 475. The foregoing......