District of Columbia v. James Petty

• Decision Date: 09 June 1913
• Docket Number: No. 316,316
• Parties: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Plff. in Err., v. JAMES T. PETTY, Charles W. Church et al., Executors of Charles B. Church, Deceased, Jesse B. Wilson, and George T. Deering
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

229 U.S. 593

33 S.Ct. 881

57 L.Ed. 1343

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Plff. in Err.,

v JAMES T. PETTY, Charles W. Church et al., Executors of Charles B. Church, Deceased, Jesse B. Wilson, and George T. Deering.

No. 316.

Argued May 8, 1913.

Decided June 9, 1913.

Mr. Edward H. Thomas for plaintiff in error.

Mr. J. J. Darlington for defendants in error Charles W. Church and George T. Deering.

Mr. W. C. Sullivan for defendant in error James T. Petty.

Messrs. Jackson H. Ralston, Frederick L. Siddons, and William E. Richardson for defendant in error Jesse B. Wilson.

Mr. Justice Pitney delivered the opinion of the court:

This action was founded upon the official bond of James T. Petty, auditor of the District of Columbia, given by him and his sureties, bearing date May 1st, 1888, and conditioned as follows:

'Whereas, the above bounden James T. Petty has been appointed to the office of auditor in and for the District of Columbia, now, therefore, the condition of said obligation is such that if the said James T. Petty shall faithfully and efficiently perform all the duties of his said office, as provided for by law, and the rules and regulations from time to time duly prescribed for the government of the civil service of said District, and shall well and truly pay over, disburse, and account for all moneys that shall come to his hands, as the law and orders governing said service shall require, then said obligation to be void; otherwise to remain in full force.'

The supreme court of the District sustained a general demurrer to the original declaration, and to several successive amended ones. Upon the last occasion an appeal was taken from the judgment of that court to the court of appeals, resulting in an affirmance (37 App. D. C. 156), and the present writ of error was then sued out.

The declaration, in its final form, sets forth the several acts of Congress under which it was sought to charge the defendant Petty, as auditor, with the custody of or responsibility for certain moneys mentioned in the several breaches assigned; and also sets forth certain rules and regulations prescribed by the commissioners of the district concerning the office of auditor, that are said to impose such responsibility.

If the averments do not show a liability on the part of the auditor and his sureties, it is no fault of the pleader. The fact is, as was frankly avowed at the Bar, that it was not intended to charge that any of the moneys in question came into the hands of Mr. Petty personally, or were by him misappropriated; that in fact it was the disbursing clerk in the auditor's office who cashed certain checks and embezzled the proceeds. The theory of the declaration is that Petty, as auditor, is responsible for the moneys represented by the checks, and bound to make good the defalcation of the disbursing officer; and this because of the character of the duties imposed upon the auditor in respect of certain funds known as the 'Permit Fund,' or the 'Deposit and Assessment Fund, Whole-Cost Work,' etc.

The history of the legislation under which the government of the District was organized and its affairs conducted, down to and during the period covered by this action, is rehearsed in the opinion of the court of appeals, and it would serve no useful purpose to repeat it here. The history of the office of auditor, and the peculiar statutes under which it is sought to hold him responsible for the custody and disbursement of moneys, and other duties aside from those that belong to the office ex vi termini, are rehearsed. Certain rules promulgated by an order of the District commissioners, under date June 13, 1888, are likewise set forth. They have to do with the disposition of moneys deposited with the collector of taxes of the District by citizens of the District for (inter alia) 'permit work.' Certain duties akin to the normal functions of an auditor are by these rules imposed upon that officer, among which are the examination of vouchers and pay rolls prepared by the superintendents of streets and of sewers, respectively, for services rendered or material furnished, payable from the...