Lacy v. Webb
| Decision Date | 20 May 1902 |
| Citation | 41 S.E. 549,130 N.C. 545 |
| Parties | LACY, Public Treasurer, v. WEBB et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Burke county; Justice, Judge.
Action by B. R. Lacy, as public treasurer, against T. M. Webb and others on a bond given to secure state deposits. A motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff was not the proper party to the suit, but that it should have been brought in the name of the state, was granted, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
F. H Busbee, for appellant.
J. T Perkins and Justice & Pless, for appellees.
This was an action brought by W. H. Worth, in his official capacity, on a bond given by the Piedmont Bank to E. S Walton, deputy treasurer, to secure certain moneys of the state deposited in said bank, to be drawn out in favor of the Deaf and Dumb School and Western Hospital. The matter was referred to Armistead Burwell, referee, who ascertained and reported the balance due. B. R. Lacy, who had succeeded to the office of public treasurer, came into court at August term, 1901, of Burke superior court, and made himself party plaintiff, and adopted the pleadings theretofore filed in the cause. The defendants excepted to this order, and at the next term of said court defendants moved to dismiss this action which motion was allowed, and the public treasurer appealed.
The money belonged to the state of North Carolina. The bond given to E. S. Walton, deputy treasurer, was given to secure its safe custody and payment to the state, or under its direction. The state treasurer is authorized (Code,§ 3359) "to demand, sue for, collect and receive all money and property of the state, not held by some person under authority of law." The bond to E. S. Walton, deputy treasurer, to secure the safekeeping of the state's funds, inured to the benefit of the state, and, being the "real party in interest," the state could maintain an action thereon in the name of its public treasurer for the time being. Neither Walton nor Worth nor Lacy has any personal interest in the matter, and the latter can maintain the action only as representative of the state. The authorities prior to the Code (section 177) have no bearing for that section was enacted to cure the technicalities of the former law and rulings, and give the action in every case to "the real party in interest," which is here the state. Somewhat analogous cases are Speight v. Staton, 104 N.C. 44, 10 S.E. 86...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rector v. Lyda
...expressly promised to pay a debt of the seller, which is our case, and Voorhees v. Porter, supra, is also like it. In Lacy v. Webb, 130 N.C. 545, 41 S.E. 549, it said: "If the state had been nothing more than the beneficiary of the bonds, it could maintain this action. * * * It is not the c......
-
Voorhees, Miller & Co. v. Porter
... ... under the contract, the contract in that case being one ... strictly of indemnity. In Lacy v. Webb, 130 N.C ... 545, 41 S.E. 549, it is said: "If the state had been ... nothing more than the beneficiary of the bonds, it could ... ...
-
Wood v. Kincaid
...v. Water Co., 124 N.C. 328, 32 S.E. 720, 46 L. R. A. 513, 70 Am. St. Rep. 598; Shoaf v. Ins. Co., 127 N.C. 308, 37 S.E. 451; Lacy v. Webb, 130 N.C. 545, 41 S.E. 549; Gastonia v. Engineering Co., 131 N.C. 363, 42 858; Voorhees v. Porter, 134 N.C. 591, 47 S.E. 31, 65 L. R. A. 736; Aiken v. Mf......