Brown v. The Board of County Commissioners of Wyandotte County

• Citation: 58 Kan. 672,50 P. 888
• Decision Date: 06 November 1897
• Docket Number: 10835
• Parties: GEORGE W. BROWN et al. v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

50 P. 888

58 Kan. 672

GEORGE W. BROWN et al. v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY

No. 10835

Supreme Court of Kansas

November 6, 1897

Decided January, 1897.

Error from Wyandotte District Court. Hon. Henry L. Alden, Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

McGrew Watson & Watson and John A. Hale, for plaintiffs in error.

J McCabe Moore, for defendant in error.

OPINION

DOSTER C. J.

On and prior to April 24, 1896, the Argentine Bank, of Argentine, was a depository of the funds of Wyandotte County; made such under the provisions of paragraph 1716, General Statutes of 1889. On that day, in pursuance of previous arrangements, it was by order of the Board of Commissioners continued as a depository for another year; and thereupon it executed a bond, as required by law, for the security of the funds deposited. The plaintiffs in error are its sureties. The bond was approved by the Commissioners on May 22, following. It was conditioned as follows:

"The conditions of this obligation are such that if the said Argentine Bank shall promptly pay any and all deposits of the county which may be so deposited with it, as such county depository, upon the check or draft of the county treasurer, countersigned by the county clerk of said county, and shall well and truly make report of the amount of money to the credit of the county treasurer at the close of business each day during the previous month, and shall also report and pay the amount of interest accrued during such month, at the rate of one and a half per cent. per annum on all daily balances, then in that event this obligation shall be void, otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect."

On the date of the approval of the bond, there was to the credit of the county, as shown by the books of the Bank, $ 37,095 of the funds previously deposited. The Bank's monthly statement, required by law and the conditions of the bond to be made June 1, showed $ 37,100 on the books of the Bank to the credit of the county on May 31. The monthly statement of July, for the preceding month of June, showed $ 37,194. No statement appears to have been made in August for the month of July, but the books of the Bank showed a credit to the county, July 31, of $ 25,300. August 18, the Bank suspended business, having on that day to the credit of the county, as shown by its books, $ 31,583. Between this date and the approval of the bond, May 22 preceding, the county treasurer deposited in the bank five thousand dollars and checked out between ten and eleven thousand. Suit was brought against the sureties to recover a balance remaining of $ 29,795. Judgment went for the county, and the defendants prosecute error to this court. They say their bond is prospective in its terms, and that they are responsible only for such moneys as were deposited subsequently to its approval; and that, in any event, they are not responsible for moneys deposited prior to the date of its approval and not then actually on hand. For the purpose of bringing their defense within the compass of the last-mentioned proposition, they offered to prove that, prior to the approval of the bond, "all of the money theretofore deposited with said Bank by said county had been lost, or placed beyond the control of said Bank, and was not, at the time of accepting and approving said bond, in the possession of the Bank." This offer was rejected, and rightly, so. If the bond is prospective in its terms, it is a matter of indifference whether the amounts of...