Dist. Twp. of Fox v. McCord
| Decision Date | 22 September 1880 |
| Citation | 6 N.W. 536,54 Iowa 346 |
| Parties | DISTRICT TOWNSHIP OF FOX v. MCCORD AND OTHERS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Black Hawk district court.
Action upon a district township treasurer's bond. The defendant H. J. McCord was the duly elected and qualified treasurer of the plaintiff district township for the year commending September 19, 1877. The other defendants were sureties upon his official bond. The petition avers that as such treasurer he received large sums of money and wrongfully appropriated the same to his own use. The answer contains a general denial. There was a trial by jury, and verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendants. The plaintiff appeals.Boyes & Couch, for appellant.
Miller & Preston, for appellees.
The defendant McCord was district township treasurer during the preceding year. No settlement was had at the close of the year, but a settlement was had in April of that year. The plaintiff introduced a witness for the purpose of showing the amount of money which the treasurer had then on hand. The defendants objected, and the court sustained the objection, to which the plaintiff excepted.
The plaintiff proposed to show the amount of money on hand in April, and follow that by showing the receipts and disbursements between that time and the end of the year. It is insisted that unless it should appear from the receipts and disbursements that all the money had been properly disbursed, the presumption would be that the balance was still in the hands of the treasurer when he entered upon his second year. The question raised is one simply of evidence. It is undisputed that the sureties upon the bond are liable only for defalcations occcurring during the time covered by the bond. This was expressly held in Ind. Dist. Montezuma v. McDonald, 39 Iowa, 564. In the case at bar the plaintiff seeks to charge the defendant sureties by showing the amount in their principal's hands in April, prior to the September in which the bond in question was executed. The defendants insist that such evidence is immaterial, because all the defalcations for which they are sought to be held may have occurred between April and September, and that there is no presumption that they occurred later. The rule, however, seems to be that where an officer charged with the custody of public funds is re-elected one or more times, and serves two or more terms, the sureties upon a subsequent bond become prima facie responsible for such balance of the previous account as is chargeable to their principal. The doctrine is that the officer, when he enters upon a subsequent term, must be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have on hand all the funds with...
To continue reading
Request your trial