Bradford v. State
| Decision Date | 18 December 1919 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 212 |
| Citation | 204 Ala. 46,85 So. 435 |
| Parties | BRADFORD, County Superintendent of Education, et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
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.
Goodhue & Brindley, of Gadsden, for appellants.
J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lawrence E. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
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 superintendent, before issuance of his warrant to the treasurer of county funds. The warrants were issued on written requisitions of Bradford "as county treasurer of public school funds," and some of the requisitions were for amounts in excess of what was required to meet the pay rolls made up by the county superintendent of education.
The several requisitions were forwarded to the state superintendent of education, and after approval by him were presented to the auditor, who drew his warrants on the state treasurer, payable out of "the educational funds...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster
... ... 80 So. 445; Carswell v. B.F. Kay & Son, 214 Ala ... 619, 108 So. 518; Wright v. McCord, 205 Ala. 122, 88 ... So. 150; Ferguson v. State ex rel. Acton, 215 Ala ... 244, 110 So. 20; Nashville, etc., v. Cox, 18 ... Ala.App. 672, 94 So. 247. A further statute providing for ... on an official 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 ... ...
-
State v. Inman
... ... moneys due or owing to the state, or upon any claim or demand ... on which the state is entitled to sue," etc., and also ... authorize the governor "to pay the costs 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 ... statutes providing the right of suit by the state for its ... ...
-
Pickett v. Richardson
... ... Brickell observes: "The true theory and reason of the ... doctrine is stated with clearness by Judge Cooley: ... 'Whenever the state confers judicial powers upon an ... individual, it confers therewith full immunity from private ... suits. In effect the state says to the officer ... 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 ... ...
-
National Surety Co. v. State
...that the last-named sum could not have been paid before the failure of the bank, or after August or September, 1924. In Bradford v. State, 204 Ala. 46, 85 So. 435, it said: "The test of liability here is: (1) Was the county treasurer of public school funds authorized by law to receive such ......