Bradford v. State, 8 Div. 73

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtMAYFIELD, J.
Citation77 So. 696,201 Ala. 170
PartiesBRADFORD et al. v. STATE.
Decision Date20 December 1917
Docket Number8 Div. 73

77 So. 696

201 Ala. 170

BRADFORD et al.
v.
STATE.

8 Div. 73

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 20, 1917


Rehearing Denied Jan. 24. 1918

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.

Bill in equity by the Attorney General, in behalf of the State, against W.E. Bradford and others. From an order overruling demurrer to the bill, defendants appeal. Affirmed. [77 So. 697.]

Goodhue & Brindley, of Gadsden, for appellants.

W.L. Martin, Atty. Gen., and L.E. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

MAYFIELD, J.

This is a bill filed by the Attorney General of the state, in the name of the state, against the sureties on the official bond of the county treasurer of public school funds for Marshall county, to recover public school funds which came into the hands of such treasurer, and were lost by the fault of the officer in depositing the funds in an insolvent bank. The bill also seeks an equitable attachment in aid of the bill. The respondents demurred to the bill, assigning many grounds of demurrer. The demurrer was overruled, and the respondent sureties prosecute this appeal.

It is first insisted that the bill should have been filed in the name of the county of Marshall, and not in the name of the state of Alabama, because the funds lost were the property of the county, and not that of the state. Second, that the county treasurer, or his personal representative, is a necessary party to the suit, in that sections 2444 et seq. of the Code do not apply, except where the action is against the defaulting officer or his personal representative. Third, that the averments of the bill do not make a case within the operation of sections 2443 et seq. of the Code, and that without the aid of these Code provisions the bill would contain no equity. Fourth, that as the defaulting officer was not authorized to receive any funds except county funds, if any state funds came into his possession it was not by virtue of his office, and that for such state funds, or the loss thereof by the county treasurer, the sureties on such officer's official bond were not liable.

Counsel for appellants cite and rely upon the cases of Morrow v. Wood, 56 Ala. 1, and Jackson County v. Derrick, 117 Ala. 348, 23 So. 193, in support of the first proposition, that the suit should be by the county of Marshall and not by the state of Alabama. These cases are not applicable for the reason that we had no statutes at all corresponding with sections 2443 et...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • State v. Inman, 8 Div. 33.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 22, 1940
    ...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 Al......
  • Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster, 6 Div. 950
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 25, 1928
    ...judgment in an action 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 provisions of section 5718 (Gen Acts of 1915, p. 60......
  • National Surety Co. v. State, 3 Div. 827.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 20, 1929
    ...special grounds for "equitable interference." The statute prescribes the right. Sections 5648, 5649, Code of 1928; Bradford v. State, 201 Ala. 170, 77 So. 696; Id., 204 Ala. 46, 85 So. 435. The making parties respondents the principal on the several official bonds, and respective sureties, ......
  • State, for Use and Ben. of Morgan County v. Norwood, 8 Div. 316.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 11, 1946
    ...of law may be maintained without alleging any special equitable grounds. Code 1940, Tit. 7, §§ 72, 73, 74 and 75. In Bradford v. State, 201 Ala. 170, 77 So. 696, 697, the bill was filed in the name of the state by the attorney general against the sureties of the official bond of a county tr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • State v. Inman, 8 Div. 33.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 22, 1940
    ...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 Al......
  • Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster, 6 Div. 950
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 25, 1928
    ...judgment in an action 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 provisions of section 5718 (Gen Acts of 1915, p. 60......
  • National Surety Co. v. State, 3 Div. 827.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 20, 1929
    ...special grounds for "equitable interference." The statute prescribes the right. Sections 5648, 5649, Code of 1928; Bradford v. State, 201 Ala. 170, 77 So. 696; Id., 204 Ala. 46, 85 So. 435. The making parties respondents the principal on the several official bonds, and respective sureties, ......
  • State, for Use and Ben. of Morgan County v. Norwood, 8 Div. 316.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 11, 1946
    ...of law may be maintained without alleging any special equitable grounds. Code 1940, Tit. 7, §§ 72, 73, 74 and 75. In Bradford v. State, 201 Ala. 170, 77 So. 696, 697, the bill was filed in the name of the state by the attorney general against the sureties of the official bond of a county tr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT