City of Chicago v. Gage
| Decision Date | 30 September 1880 |
| Citation | 35 Am.Rep. 182,1880 WL 10072,95 Ill. 593 |
| Parties | CITY OF CHICAGOv.DAVID A. GAGE et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the First District.
An action of debt was brought in the circuit court of Cook county, by the city of Chicago, against David A. Gage, late treasurer of the city of Chicago, and John B. Sherman and others as sureties upon what was alleged to be the official bond of said Gage, to recover a sum of money which it was alleged he had refused to pay over to his successor in office. Pleas of non est factum were filed by all of the defendants and verified by a part of the sureties. Issues were formed thereon, and upon the breaches assigned, by proper pleas, and upon the issues thus formed a trial was had in the circuit court resulting in a verdict against the defendants for $1,000,000 debt, the penalty of the bond, and $507,703.58 damages, upon which judgment was rendered. The defendants took the case to the Appellate Court for the First District, where the judgment was reversed, and the city appealed from the judgment of the Appellate Court to this court.
The facts upon which the questions of law arise are as follows:
That on the 7th day of November, 1869, David A. Gage was duly elected treasurer of the city of Chicago; that he duly qualified, gave the bonds required by law, and entered upon and discharged the duties of said office for the space of two years, and on the 7th day of November, 1871, he was duly elected his own successor in said office; that all the records in the treasurer's and comptroller's offices of the city of Chicago were destroyed by fire on the 8th and 9th of October, 1871; that on the 13th of February, 1872, Gage reported to the comptroller that there was in the treasury of the city, on the said 9th day of October, 1871, the sum of $645,749.48 cash, which sum was adopted as a basis of future monthly reports required by law to be made by the said treasurer, adding to said sum his receipts of revenue from all sources, and deducting all disbursements made by him on account of the said city. From these reports, made monthly, under oath, it was made to appear that on the 16th day of December, 1873, the date of the expiration of the second term of office, there was in Gage's hands, as treasurer of said city, the sum of $965,780.81, of which sum Gage paid over to his successor, the late Daniel O'Hara, the sum of $458,077.23, leaving a deficit unaccounted for of $507,703.58; that this action was brought in the circuit court to recover the amount of this deficit against said Gage and the other defendants, on what purported to be his official bond, for the second term of his office, to which he was elected on the 7th of November, 1871.
That the instrument sued upon was signed by the parties claimed to be sureties whilst it was a blank form.
That the following is a copy of said instrument as it now appears, the printed words of the same, as it was when signed, being in Roman letters, and the words inserted thereafter to fill up the blanks, being in italic:
“OFFICIAL BOND.--Know all men by these presents, that we, David A. Gage, William F. Tucker, Albert Crosby, John B. Sherman, James H. McVicker, John A. Rice, Nathaniel P. Wilder and George W. Gage, of the county of Cook, and State of Illinois, are held and firmly bound unto the city of Chicago, in the penal sum of one million dollars, lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which sum of money well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
Sealed with our seals, and dated this eleventh day of December, A. D. 1871.
The condition of the above obligation is such, that whereas the above bounden, David A. Gage, was, on the seventh day of November, 1871, elected to the office of treasurer in and for the city of Chicago, to hold said office for the period of two years, and until his successor shall be duly elected and qualified, or until said office shall be otherwise legally vacated:
Now, therefore, if the said David A. Gage shall well and faithfully perform and discharge the duties of said office, as prescribed and required by law, and the orders and ordinances of said city of Chicago, and shall account for and pay over all moneys received by him as such treasurer, in accordance with law, and in accordance with orders or ordinances heretofore passed, or hereafter to be passed, by the common council of said city, in conformity with law, and deliver all books, papers, and all other property belonging to said city, to his successor in office, then this obligation to be void, otherwise to be and remain in full force and effect.
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦DAVID A. GAGE, ¦[Seal.]¦
+---------------------------+----------------+-------¦
¦One Dollar Revenue Stamp. ¦WM. F. TUCKER, ¦[Seal.]¦
+---------------------------+----------------+-------¦
¦December 11, 1871. ¦ALBERT CROSBY, ¦[Seal.]¦
+---------------------------+----------------+-------¦
¦D. A. Gage. ¦JOHN B. SHERMAN,¦[Seal.]¦
+---------------------------+----------------+-------¦
¦ ¦J. H. MCVICKER, ¦[Seal.]¦
+---------------------------+----------------+-------¦
¦ ¦JOHN A. RICE, ¦[Seal.]¦
+---------------------------+----------------+-------¦
¦ ¦N. P. WILDER, ¦[Seal.]¦
+---------------------------+----------------+-------¦
¦ ¦GEORGE W. GAGE, ¦[Seal.]¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of
______________, City Clerk.
Approved _______ 187.
That some time in November, 1871, about the 15th day of said month, Robert Clark, Gage's son-in-law, at the instance of said Gage, took this paper, then blank, and without any writing upon it except the signature of Gage, and went to the Union Stock Yards to secure the names of Mr. Tucker and Mr. Sherman, as sureties; that upon meeting Tucker he made known to him his business, and requested him to sign the paper, and procure Sherman to do so. Tucker inquired of Clark what was to be the amount of the bond and who were to sign it; to which inquiry Clark replied that the amount had not yet been fixed, but that Tucker could find out the amount, which was yet to be fixed, and also the names that should be on it when he qualified. That he would have to go down and qualify to the bond. That Tucker signed it under these circumstances, and procured Sherman to do so. Upon presenting the paper to Sherman, Sherman inquired of Tucker what was to be the penalty of the bond, and Tucker reported to him the representations made by Clark; Sherman, at the same time, saying that he would not sign it at all if the penalty was to be over $250,000, and not then unless the cosureties were satisfactory to him, but whether he would stand on the bond as surety or not, he would reserve until he had gone down to acknowledge the bond. That Sherman signed the paper under these circumstances; that neither Sherman nor Tucker were ever called upon to acknowledge the bond, and never did acknowledge it, and never saw it again until on the trial of the cause in said circuit court; and never authorized any one to fill up the bond, and never ratified or approved the bond after it was filled up.
That the canvass of the votes cast at the city election on November 7, 1871, was made on the 20th day of November, 1871; that on the 27th of the same month, Gage lodged with C. T. Hotchkiss, city clerk, at his office in the city of Chicago, the paper sued upon in this case, signed by all the parties whose names appear subscribed thereto, but with all the blanks of the original form still unfilled. That the paper remained with the said city clerk in that condition until the 11th day of December following, which was five days after the expiration of the time provided for the filing of his official bond as limited by section 25 of chapter 2 of the charter of the city of Chicago, then in force, which section is as follows:
“All city officers who are required by the provisions of this act, or by any legal ordinance passed by the common council, to give bonds for the faithful performance of their official duty, shall file their bonds with the city clerk within fifteen days after their election or appointment, and he shall record them, when approved, in a book kept for that purpose.”
“When bonds are not filed with the city clerk within fifteen days after the votes shall have been officially canvassed, or after the appointment shall have been made, the person so in default shall be deemed to have refused said office, and the same shall be filled by appointment, as in other cases.”
“If, in any case, any official bonds so filed shall not be approved, the officer filing the same shall file a new and satisfactory bond within fifteen days after such disapproval; and in case of a failure so to do, he shall be deemed to have refused said office, and the same shall be filled as above provided.”
Section 27, chapter 2, of the charter provides that “it shall be the duty of the clerk to notify all persons elected or appointed to office, of their election or appointment, and unless such persons shall respectively qualify within fifteen days thereafter, the offices shall become vacant.”
That whilst said paper remained in possession of said city clerk as aforesaid, Mr. C. C. P. Holden, the presiding officer of the former...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McFetridge
...fund, and all gains arising therefrom became part of it. See statutes; Hughes v. People, 82 Ill. 78;Cooper v. People, 85 Ill. 417;Chicago v. Gage, 95 Ill. 593;Bain v. Brown, 56 N. Y. 288;Bigelow v. Railway Co., 27 Wis, 478;Dillon v. Linder, 36 Wis. 344. The use of the public moneys for the ......
-
Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Dist. Dir., INS, USD of Jus.
...executing a bond knowing that blanks must be filled in after execution agrees to the subsequent completion of the blanks. City of Chicago v. Gage, 95 Ill. 593 (1880). Because it leaves open the actual date, the term "date admitted to or extended to" is not unlike the blanks to be completed ......
-
Northern Trust Company a Corporation v. First National Bank of Buffalo, a Corporation
... ... 229, 2 N.W. 987, 7 N.W ... 155; Morley v. Metamora, 78 Ill. 394, 20 Am. Rep ... 266; Gage v. Chicago, 2 Ill.App. 332; ... Independent School Dist. v. Hubbard, 110 Iowa 58, 80 ... Am ... Section 1472, Comp. Laws ... 1913, provides: "All funds of each and every city or ... school district of this state shall be deposited by the ... treasurer of the city, county, ... ...
-
State ex rel. Stain v. Christensen
... ... Judgment for defendants ... Claude ... T. Barnes, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiff ... O. L ... Huntsman, of Salt Lake City, for defendant Christensen ... the world, is unquestionable." (Italics added.) ... In the ... case of Chicago v. Gage , 95 Ill. 593, 35 ... Am. Rep. 182, a provision of the city charter provided: ... ...