Holland v. American Sur. Co. of New York
| Decision Date | 16 January 1942 |
| Parties | HOLLAND, Governor, for Use and Benefit of State et al., v. AMERICAN SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 3, 1942.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., and E. Albert Pallot, Asst Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error.
Stuart Machenzie, of Miami, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error was surety on the bond of the tax collector of Hendry County who defaulted in the sum of $8,575.77. Plaintiff in error brought this action on behalf of the State and County to recover the defalcation. In his eleventh plea to the declaration, defendant in error, who was defendant below alleged that $7,110.20 of the default was collected for license plates and titles distributed by the Tax Collector pursuant to Section 1281, Compiled General Laws Perm.Supp that the Tax Collector was required to account for said funds to the motor vehicle commissioner of the State to whom he executed another bond in the sum of $1,000 for the faithful performance of his duty and that such being the case, he was not bound on his general bond for this amount.
A demurrer to the eleventh plea was overruled and final judgment was entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,465.57, instead of $8,575.77, the amount claimed. The trial court took the position that the tax collector was not liable on his general bond for the default as to license plates but was liable only on his special bond to the motor vehicle commissioner. Writ of error was prosecuted to the final judgment.
The question presented is whether or not the general bond of the Tax Collector was liable for the full amount of the default or was liability as to the amount collected on license plates limited to his special bond given to the motor vehicle commissioner.
The general bond was in the sum of $10,000 conditioned to diligently and 'faithfully perform all the duties of his office by the faithful collection of taxes, both State and County and the prompt payment thereof to the State and County Treasurers as prescribed by law'. The special bond was in the sum of $1,000, payable to the motor vehicle commissioner conditioned upon the faithful performance of his duties as required by Section 1281, Compiled General Laws Perm.Supp.
Sections 2416 and 2417, Compiled General Laws of 1927, govern the bond of the Tax Collector and are as follows:
Section 1281, Compiled General Laws Perm.Supp., govern the bond and duties of the Tax Collector as distributor of license plates and is as follows:
Construing Sections 2416 and 2417 together, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the law binds the tax collector and his sureties generally for the faithful performance of his duties as such which includes any duty that may be subsequently imposed on him by law that is germane to or of a similar kind and within the reasonable contemplation of the parties. If the duties bear some relation to or are connected with the office and are not disconnected from or foreign to it, that is sufficient. National Surety Company v. United States, 8 Cir., 129 F. 70, 22 R.C.L. 503, paragraph 186.
In Catts for Use of Lafayette County v. Winburn, 81 Fla. 756, 88 So. 918, this Court construed a bond conditioned as the one involved in this case to be sufficient to secure filing fees collected from candidates in a primary election and paid to the clerk of the circuit court under a statute enacted subsequent to the giving of the bond.
The distribution of license plates and collection of charges therefor is not foreign to the duties of the office of tax collector. If he were secretary of his lodge or treasurer of some private corporation and defaulted, his bond as tax collector would not be liable because such would be foreign to and have no connection with that office.
Taking the face of the bonds literally without any relation to the law governing them, a different interpretation would not be unreasonable but the bond or bonds of a public official should be construed to accomplish what the law requires of it. In this case, the law requires a bond for the 'faithful performance of the duties of his office'. He gave a bond in the sum of ten thousand dollars for that purpose. His duties as distributor of license plates is germane to his duty as tax collector; the fund he handled was just as sacred as taxes collected and since a very nominal bond was required for this, it may be that the motor vehicle commissioner considered him liable on his general bond and did not require a bond in proportion to his accountability.
In fine, we are confronted with three provisions of law for a bond, one general and two special or relating to particular duties. We think the ten thousand dollar bond was for the faithful performance of official duty which included that of distributing license plates. Even if the statute and the bonds taken together are susceptible of two interpretations, if given to protect public funds, that interpretation should be adopted which will preserve the fund. Not only that but any doubt as to interpretation should be so resolved.
In this holding, we do not overlook the doctrine that the liability of sureties on an official bond is limited by the terms of the bond and cannot be extended beyond its reasonable and necessary import but that doctrine is also limited by the terms of the law prescribing the bond and the law is as much a part of the bond as if written into it. When the law and the bond in this case are construed together, there is ample basis to protect the fund in question.
Holding this view, it follows that the judgment below must be and is hereby reversed.
Reversed.
Writ of error brings for review judgment as follows: 'This cause coming on to be heard upon defendant's motion for better bill of particulars and motion to strike an item in plaintiff's bill of particulars, and plaintiff's motion to strike pleas numbered 1 to 10 both inclusive and demurrer of plaintiff to plea numbered 11, and the same having been argued by counsel for the respective parties and considered by the Court:
'It Is Therefore Ordered and Adjudged that the defendant's motion for a better bill of particulars and the defendant's motion to strike an item in plaintiff's bill of particulars, and the plaintiff's motion to strike pleas numbered 1 to 10 both inclusive, and the demurrer of plaintiff to defendant's plea numbered 11, be and the same are and each one is overruled and denied.
'Whereupon the defendant asked leave in open court to withdraw its said pleas numbered 1 to 10 both inclusive and admit its liability for $1,465.57, and pay that amount into the registry of the court.
'Whereupon, the plaintiff stated that the 11th plea, in his opinion, was bad, but that he could not amend his declaration to meet the allegations of defendant's special plea numbered 11, and would therefore question the sufficiency of the said 11th plea in the Supreme Court.
'It Is Thereupon Further Ordered and Adjudged that leave be and the same is hereby granted to the defendant to withdraw said pleas numbered 1 to 10 both inclusive, admit its liability for said item of $1,465.57, and pay said sum of, to-wit: $1,465.57 in to the registry of this Court. And the defendant having withdrawn said pleas numbered 1 to 10 both inclusive in pursuance of the leave heretofore granted by the Court and tendered in to the registry of this Court the sum of $1,465.57 in full settlement and discharge of its liability upon the bond sued upon in this cause:
'Whereupon the Court enters final judgment for the plaintiff Fred P. Cone as Governor of the State of Florida, for the use and benefit of the State of Florida and County of Hendry, against the defendant, American Surety Company of New York, a corporation, for the sum of $1,465.57, which said sum has heretofore been tendered into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Langley v. Patrick
...406; Annotation 109 A.L.R. 501. The cases from other jurisdictions relied on by the appellant, including Holland v. American Surety Company, 149 Fla. 285, 6 So.2d 280, 140 A.L.R. 1451, are factually distinguishable, and are not considered as controlling The judgment as of nonsuit below is s......
- Williams v. Williams