Cooper v. the People

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Citation1877 WL 9575,85 Ill. 417
PartiesJAMES T. COOPER et al.v.THE PEOPLE, for the use of Madison County.
Decision Date30 June 1877

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Macoupin county; the Hon. CHARLES S. ZANE, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. BAKER, WISE, GILLESPIE & HAPPY, for the appellants.

Mr. E. BREESE GLASS, and Messrs. KROME & HADLEY, for the appellee.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE SCHOLFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court:

It will be necessary to notice but a single question arising on this record. The suit is upon the bond given by the sheriff to secure the performance of his duties, generally, as sheriff. The ground upon which a recovery is claimed, is, the failure of the sheriff to pay into the county treasury the commissions retained by him out of the revenue for collecting it, in excess of the amount to which he is entitled as compensation under the allowance of the county board. The rule is of familiar recognition in this court, that the undertaking of a surety is to be construed strictly, and that he is bound to the extent, and in the manner, and under the circumstances pointed out in his obligation, and no farther. The provisions of the statute under which the bond in suit was executed relate entirely to the duties usually pertaining to the office of sheriff, and have not the slightest reference to the ex officio duties of collecting and paying over revenue. Those duties were imposed by different sections of the statute, and an additional and totally distinct bond was required for their faithful performance.

There can be no question but that each bond relates to distinct and independent duties from the other, and, consequently, that the sureties upon the one could not have contemplated they were incurring the same liabilities as the sureties upon the other. This was expressly recognized to be the law in Wood et al. v. Cook, 31 Ill. 279. There, referring to The People v. Edwards, 9 California, 291, it was said: “By the law of California, the sheriff is made, ex officio, tax collector, and it provides that he shall be liable on his bond for the discharge of his duties in the collection of taxes, and does not require the execution of any new bond; nor is any other bond required than the one executed by him as sheriff, except when he acts as collector of taxes for miners' licenses. The bond in suit was deemed to have been executed in view of the provisions of the Revenue act. For moneys collected for foreign miners' licenses, the court say the defendants are not responsible, but all delinquencies in the collection of the other taxes are covered by the bond in suit. This court would decide the same way, were the sureties of the sheriff on his bond, as such, sued for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • State v. McFetridge
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 10, 1893
    ......Miller v. Stewart, 9 Wheat. 681;People v. Chalmers, 60 N. Y. 154; Brandt, Sur. § 59; Kingsbury v. Westfall, 61 N. Y. 356;Lang v. Pike, 27 Ohio St. 498; De Col. Guar. p. 233; Vivian v. ...Rep. 887. The original fund was a trust 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. ......
  • State ex rel. Sullivan County v. Maryland Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 11, 1933
    ......Zimmerman v. Schaper, 152 Mo.App. 538; State of Missouri ex rel. Martin v. Harbridge, 43 Mo.App. 16; Alcorn v. The. State, 57 Miss. 273; Cooper v. People, 85 Ill. 417; State v. Felton, 59 Miss. 402; Broad v. Paris, 66 Tex. 119; Commonwealth v. Zachry, 54. Tex. Civ. App. 188; Commonwealth ......
  • State ex rel. Sullivan County v. Maryland Cas. Co., 30806.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 11, 1933
    ...152 Mo. App. 538; State of Missouri ex rel. Martin v. Harbridge, 43 Mo. App. 16; Alcorn v. The State, 57 Miss. 273; Cooper v. People, 85 Ill. 417; State v. Felton, 59 Miss. 402; Broad v. Paris, 66 Tex. 119; Commonwealth v. Zachry, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 188; Commonwealth v. Toms, 45 Pa. St. 408.......
  • Adams v. Williams
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • June 6, 1910
    ...... privileges of serving as treasurer of the board, whereupon. the board entrusted to him the funds of the people and. treated him in all respects as a lawful and qualified. officer. Hence he cannot now be heard to set up in his own. defense the fact that he, ... 1882, many years after the Code of 1871, § 309, had been. enlarged so as to read as section 3463 of the present code,. Judge COOPER, speaking for the court, said: "One of the. prerequisites for giving validity and effect to an official. bond is that it shall be approved by the ......
  • 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