Mchaney v. the Trustees of Sch.

Citation68 Ill. 140,1873 WL 8295
PartiesJAMES MCHANEY et al.v.THE TRUSTEES OF SCHOOLS, etc.
Decision Date30 June 1873
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREWRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Marion county; the Hon. SILAS L. BRYAN, Judge, presiding.

Mr. HENRY C. GOODNOW, for the plaintiffs in error.Mr. D. C. JONES, and Mr. W. W. WILLARD, for the defendants in error.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAIG delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action of debt, brought in the circuit court of Marion county, by The Board of Trustees of Schools against James McHaney and Britton Smith, upon the official bond of McHaney. By agreement a jury was waived, a trial was had, and judgment rendered by the court in favor of plaintiff for penalty of bond, $4000, to be discharged on payment of the damages, $69.92. The defendants bring the case to this court by writ of error. By the agreed state of facts, as shown by the record, it appears that James McHaney was, on the 15th day of April, 1867, appointed treasurer of schools in township three north, range two east, in Marion county, and gave bond, with Britton Smith and S. J. Boring as sureties; that while he was treasurer a note came into his hands, as such, for $55, dated October 1st, 1866, due in 12 months, with interest, against James H. Dorris, John Wright and Britton Smith, payable to the trustees; that James H. Dorris was the principal maker of the note, and the other two signers were his sureties; that James H. Dorris died June 20th, 1868, and on the 17th of August, 1868, Wm. C. Dorris was appointed administrator of his estate; that the day fixed for adjustment of claims against the estate was the 13th of January, 1869; that James McHaney did not appear and have the note probated and allowed against the estate on that day, or at any other time; that after the death of Dorris, his administrator paid the interest on the note to McHaney.

On the 29th of April, 1870, Thomas Allmon was appointed treasurer of schools, as successor to McHaney, to whom he delivered over this note and all books, papers, etc., belonging to the office; that there was no order made by the trustees of schools, while McHaney was in the office, that the note against Dorris should be collected or further secured.

It is claimed by the defendants in error that it was the duty of McHaney, the treasurer, to present this note on the day appointed by the administrator for the adjustment of claims, and have it allowed against the estate of James H. Dorris. There can be no doubt but it was the duty of the treasurer to have appeared and had the claim allowed on the day appointed for the adjustment of claims, under section 60 of Gross' Statutes, page 702.

It is also claimed that, on failure of the treasurer to perform the duties enjoined on him by law, he is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • In re Day
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 19, 1899
    ...and a retrospective effect will not be given to it, unless it clearly appears that such was the intention of the legislature. McHaney v. Trustees, 68 Ill. 140;Mortgage Co. v. Gross, 93 Ill. 483;People v. Peacock, 98 Ill. 172;Means v. Harrison, 114 Ill. 248, 2 N. E. 64. In this case no inten......
  • Cleary v. Hoobler
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • February 17, 1904
    ...and in case of doubt the statute must be construed to have a prospective effect only. Thompson v. Alexander, 11 Ill. 54;McHaney v. Trustees of Schools, 68 Ill. 140;Means v. Harrison, 114 Ill. 248, 2 N. E. 64;In re Day, 181 Ill. 73, 54 N. E. 646,50 L. R. A. 519. This is a case where that rul......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT