Morley v. the Town of Metamora.

• Decision Date: 30 September 1875
• Citation: 78 Ill. 394,20 Am.Rep. 266,1875 WL 8496
• Parties: JOSEPH MORLEYv.THE TOWN OF METAMORA.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

78 Ill. 394

1875 WL 8496 (Ill.)

20 Am.Rep. 266

JOSEPH MORLEY

v.THE TOWN OF METAMORA.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1875.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Woodford county; the Hon. JOHN BURNS, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. CLARK & ELLWOOD, for the appellant.

Messrs. CHITTY & PAGE, for the appellee.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court:

This action is upon the official bond of a supervisor, to recover money which, it is alleged, he had in his hands at the expiration of his term of office, and failed to pay over to his successor, on proper demand being made. The condition underwritten the bond is in the usual form, and is in conformity with the provisions of the statute.

The principal in the bond was first elected supervisor in April, 1872, and was elected his own successor in April, 1873. The sureties on the bond given in the first year were not the same as on the one given the second year. It appears that, just before the expiration of the first term for which he was elected, he made a report, to the proper officers of the town, that he then had in his hands an amount of money about equal to the present judgment. His report was approved. On his re-election he gave a new bond, and entered anew upon the discharge of the duties of his office. It is upon this bond the action was brought.

It further appears, that during the last year the supervisor accounted for an amount of money about equal to the amount by him received during that year. The defense is, the defalcation all occurred during the first year, and hence the sureties on the first bond are liable for it.

There is no contest that the amount recovered is due from the supervisor to the town, but the question is, upon whom is the liability for the default, whether upon the sureties on the first or the second bond.

It is not made to appear very clearly, that whatever default occurred took place in the first year the supervisor was in office; but, conceding that fact, we do not think it relieves the sureties on the bond upon which this action is brought, from liability. The supervisor was his own successor in office. He had made his annual report, in which he charged himself with having a certain amount of money in his hands. That report was approved, and we must presume it was true. When he was re-elected, it was in his hands as his own successor. These facts appeared upon the public records of the town. The new securities upon the official bond of...