Lowry v. Polk County

• Decision Date: 01 June 1879
• Citation: Lowry v. Polk County, 49 N. W. 1049, 51 Iowa 50 (Iowa 1879)
• Parties: LOWRY v. POLK COUNTY
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

49 N.W. 1049

51 Iowa 50

LOWRY v. POLK COUNTY

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

June 1, 1879

SATURDAY APRIL 26.

Appeal from Polk Circuit Court.

THE plaintiff was elected treasurer of defendant in 1873 qualified, and entered upon the discharge of his duties. The county failed to provide a suitable safe or vault in which the public money could be safely kept. The plaintiff deposited the money coming into his hands in banks, and had on deposit with F. R. West & Sons several thousand dollars at the time they failed.

The plaintiff was again elected treasurer in 1875, and tendered his bond as such to the board of supervisors, who refused to approve or accept the same because the plaintiff had not accounted for the money on deposit with West & Sons, and did not propose to do so, but claimed the loss must fall on the county and not on him. Whereupon an arrangement was made whereby the bond was approved, and this action brought for the purpose of determining whether the plaintiff was liable for said loss. The Circuit Court having so found and adjudged, the plaintiff appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Barcroft Given & Drabelle, for appellant.

W. E. Miller, for appellee.

OPINION

SEEVERS, J.

The official bond given by the plaintiff provides, among other things, that he "shall * * exercise all reasonable diligence and care in the preservation and lawful disposal of all money * * * * appertaining to his office." This provision was construed in Rose v. Hatch, 5 Iowa 149, and it was there held, where money had been stolen from the county treasury without any want of reasonable care and diligence on the part of the treasurer, that he was not liable for the loss.

The case at bar is materially different from the one cited, in this: In that case the money was stolen from the "county treasury;" in this it was not in the treasury, but had been deposited, by the voluntary action of the plaintiff, with West & Sons, and thereby lost. It is true no suitable place had been provided by the county in which public money could be safely kept, but there is no provision of law imposing such duty on the defendant. This the plaintiff was bound to know when he entered upon the discharge of the duties of said office.

The action of the plaintiff in depositing the money received by him in banks was purely voluntary, because there is no evidence tending to show he ever requested the defendant to provide a suitable place in which it could be safely kept.

It is not deemed necessary to refer to the evidence as to the character and standing of West & Sons, or...