Huffstuttler v. State Use White County

Decision Date15 June 1931
Docket Number36
CitationHuffstuttler v. State Use White County, 39 S.W.2d 721, 183 Ark. 993 (Ark. 1931)
PartiesHUFFSTUTTLER v. STATE USE WHITE COUNTY
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from White Chancery Court; Frank H. Dodge, Chancellor reversed in part.

Decree reversed, and cause remanded.

W. D Davenport, W. H. Gregory, Tom W. Campbell, Brundidge & Neelly and Miller & Yingling, for appellants.

Culbert L. Pearce, for appellee.

OPINION

HUMPHREYS, J.

This is an appeal from a decree of the chancery court of White County for $ 31,789.05, primarily against appellants, W. D Davenport, J. H. McElwee, and J. Y. Woodson, as depository bondsmen and, secondarily, against H. A. Huffstuttler, treasurer, and his official bondsmen, after the reformation of the bond for county funds lost in the Union Bank & Trust Company; and a cross-appeal by appellee from a decree disallowing its claim against H. A. Huffstuttler and his bondsmen to the amount of $ 2,005.34, lost in the Bank of Pangburn, and its claim for interest on the amount lost in both banks.

The record reflects that, under act 113 of the Acts of 1905, the Union Bank & Trust Company was regularly designated by proper order of the county court a county depository of White County for two years from the 12th day of July, 1921; that, pursuant to the order, it executed a depository bond in accordance with said act on the 8th day of August, 1921, signed by a number of sureties, including appellants, W. D. Davenport, J. H. McElwee and J. Y. Woodson; that, at the November term, 1923, of the White County court, the court made and entered another order designating said Union Bank & Trust Company depository for a term of two years from the date thereof, on condition it should file the depository bond required by said act, which it failed to do; that, on October 1, 1927, after the passage of the general depository act for the State of Arkansas repealing act 113 of the Acts of 1905, the county court made and entered an order designating said bank a county depository under requirement that it should file a bond satisfactory to the judge of White County before any of the county funds should be deposited in said bank; that no bond was filed by said bank under said order, and that the said bank continued to receive deposits from various treasurers of White County from and after the 8th day of August, 1921, down to the date of its failure on the 4th day of November, 1930, at which time there was on deposit in the name of H. A. Huffstuttler, treasurer, the sum of $ 31,789.05; that none of the money deposited by the treasurer of said county within two years after the depository bond was filed and approved on August 8, 1921, was in the bank at the time it failed, but that said moneys had been paid out on proper checks and warrants prior to the failure; that the Bank of Pangburn was never designated as a county depository by order of the county court, and never filed a depository bond in compliance with act 113 of the Acts of 1905, or the general depository act of 1927; that the treasurer, H. A. Huffstuttler, deposited county moneys in the Bank of Pangburn under oral instructions of the county judge, and that at the time of its failure on the 15th day of November, 1930, the treasurer had on deposit in said bank the sum of $ 2,005.34 belonging to said county; that, on the 6th day of November, 1929, H. A. Huffstuttler was elected treasurer of White County and filed an official bond on a blank form in the sum of $ 80,000 on December 31, 1929, after same was examined and confirmed by the county judge, firmly binding him and his bondsmen to account for all funds coming into his hands, which bond failed to set out the names of his bondsmen in the body of the instrument, the title of his office, the term thereof, and which he failed to sign, but which was regular in all other respects.

Other facts appear in the record, which we deem it unnecessary to set out in order to determine the questions involved on this appeal.

The first question involved on this appeal is whether the depository bond executed on August 8, 1921, by the Union Bank & Trust Company, and signed by appellants, W. D. Davenport J. H. McElwee, and J. Y. Woodson, as sureties, was a continuing bond or whether the liability thereon was limited to a two-year period. The bond is silent as to the length of the term thereof, but the statute providing for its execution clearly evinces an intention by the Legislature that its duration should be for a period of two years. Provision was made...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
6 cases
  • Booth & Flynn v. Price
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1931
    ... ... extended through Pope County, Arkansas. Its work required it ... to dig a ditch to lay the main in, ... ...
  • Drainage District No. 18, Craighead County v. McMeen
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1931
    ... ... benefits may be made in any levee or drainage district in the ... State, whether created under general law or by special act of ... the Legislature, not oftener than once ... its interpretation ...          In the ... case of State v. White, 170 Ark. 880, 281 ... S.W. 678, it was said that "the language of the caption ... of a statute ... ...
  • Pace v. State Use Saline County
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • November 19, 1934
    ... ... trust company filed with the county clerk its bond signed by ... Robert F. Lambeth, H. W. Thompson, L. B. White, W. J. Cox, H ... W. Finkbeiner, A. V. Martin, J. A. Cunningham, and B. A ... Fletcher. This bond was examined [189 Ark. 1107] by the ... county ... be construed as we construe the language of the statute in ... order to carry out its purpose. Huffstuttler v ... State, 183 Ark. 993, 39 S.W.2d 721 ...          It ... follows from the views expressed that the execution of the ... depository ... ...
  • Jefferson Bank of St. Louis, Missouri v. Little Red River Levee District of White County
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1933
    ... ... 634, entitled, "An act requiring the commissioners and ... treasurers of all improvement districts in this State to ... require depositories of the funds of such improvement ... districts to give surety bond for the full amount ... deposited." Epstein v. as City Life ... Ins. Co., ante p. 451; ... Huffstuttler v. State use White ... County, 183 Ark. 993, 39 S.W.2d 721 ...          The ... account of the treasurer will therefore be charged with ... ...
  • Get Started for Free