Placer County v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Writing for the Court | CARTER; GIBSON; SPENCE |
| Citation | 323 P.2d 753,50 Cal.2d 182 |
| Parties | The COUNTY OF PLACER, a Political Subdivision of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY (a corporation), United Pacific Insurance Company (a corporation) and Leonard M. Layton, Defendants and Appellants. Sac. 6894. |
| Decision Date | 08 April 1958 |
Page 753
v.
AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY (a corporation), United Pacific Insurance Company (a corporation) and Leonard M. Layton, Defendants and Appellants.
[50 Cal.2d 183] Robinson & Robinson and D. R. Robinson, Auburn, for appellants.
Alexandria B. Broyer, Dist. Atty., Roseville, for respondent.
CARTER, Justice.
This is an appeal by defendants, Aetna Casualty and Surety, Company, United Pacific Insurance Company, and Leonard M. Layton, from a judgment entered upon a verdict by a jury. The verdict was directed by the court in favor of the plaintiff.
The facts are not in dispute. Defendant Sherlie Bennett (who defaulted) was the Clerk of the Roseville Judicial District Court in Placer County and had been appointed to that position by defendant Leonard M. Layton, judge of said court. On January 1, 1952, the Roseville Justice's Court was consolidated with the Roseville
Page 754
City Court whereby the Roseville Judicial District Court came into being. Judge Layton had been judge of the Roseville Justice's Court for many years prior to the consolidation and thereafter became judge of the Roseville Judicial District Court. After the consolidation the Placer County Board of Supervisors authorized the employment of a clerk and Shelie Bennett was hired to fill the position at that time. She served until her arrest in November, 1954. In 1951, defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company bonded Judge Layton, as principal, with itself as surety, in the sum of $1,000 for Judge Layton's four year term which began on January 8, 1951. Defendant United Pacific executed a similar suretyship bond in the sum of $5,000 for Judge Layton's term which began on January 5, 1953. [50 Cal.2d 184] Both of these bonds were executed by Judge Layton. The county of Placer purchased a blanket employees' bond which became effective on February 1, 1954, and which covered Sherlie Bennett. The total amount of money stolen by Sherlie Bennett was set at $11,807.75, of which the blanket employees' bond paid off all but.$4,548.50 and the prayer of the complaint was amended to conform to that figure.On July 1, 1953, the county's auditors found a shortage of $1,647.25 which was called to the attention of the Placer County auditor who called it to the attention of the chairman of the board of supervisors who was also the supervisor from the Roseville District. The shortage was formally called to the attention of the board of supervisors on November 16, 1953. Sherlie Bennett had been allowed to make up the shortage and the formal written audit filed on November 16, 1953, carried a notation that the dificit had been substantially made up.
When the county's auditors began their fiscal year audit in July, 1954, more shortages in the Roseville Court were discovered and a special audit was requested of the board of supervisors. The specia audit, as heretofore noted, disclosed a total deficiency of $11,807.75.
The clairman of the board of supervisors testified that he called Judge Layton's attention to the $1,647.25 shortage indicated in the audit report of November 16, 1953. Judge Layton testified that he knew nothing about the $1,647.25 shortage until the day after Sherlie Bennett was arrested. The record shows that during the time of the 1953 audit Judge Layton, a man 70 years of age, was seriously ill in the hospital and did not sit on the bench during September and October while he was rucuperaing from his illness.
The record shows that Sherlie Bennett used many different methods in embezzling the fund turned over to her in her official capacity as clerk of the court. As examples, she would alter the official receipts by changing one from $250 to $2.50; she would void receipts or issue no receipts at all; she also obtained for her personal use official receipt books which she kept in her own possession and which were never turned in to the proper authorities. Other methods used by her are too detailed to repeat here and it is unnecessary to do so since the conlclusion is inescapable that she was guilty of the crime of embezzlement.
The primary question involved here is whether Judge Layton is absolutely liable under section 1504 of the Government [50 Cal.2d 185] Code, or whether he is liable only if negligent as provided for in section 1953.5 of the same code.
Section 1504, which was enacted in 1872 (Pol.Code, §§ 959 and 960) and as it read prior to the 1955 amendment, provides: 'every official bond executed by any officer pursuant to law is in force and obligatory upon the principal and sureties therein for:
'(a) Any and all breaches of the conditions thereof committed during the time such officer continues to discharge any of the duties of or hold the office, and whether such breaches are committed or suffered by the principal officer, his deputy, or clerk.
'(b) The faithful discharge of all duties which may be required of such officer
Page 755
by any law enacted subsequently to the execution of the bond.'Section 1953.5 which was enacted in 1949, and amended in 1951, provides: No officer of the State, or of any district, county, city and county, city, or judicial district, is liable for moneys stolen from his official custody unless the loss was sustained because the officer failed to exercise due care.'
It is defendants' position that the 1927 amendments to Penal Code, sections 484 and 490a brought embezzlement and larceny within the word 'theft;' that the word 'stolen' includes embezzlement. Section 490a of the Penal Code, as amended in 1927, provides: 'Wherever any law or statute of this state refers to or mentions larceny, embezzlement, or stealing, said law or statute shall hereafter be read and interpreted as if the word 'theft'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lance W., In re, Cr. 23551
...In re Thierry S., supra, 19 Cal.3d 727, 744, 139 Cal.Rptr. 708, 566 P.2d 610; County of Placer v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 182, 188-189, 323 P.2d 753.) 3 The majority's reading of section 28(d) results in a substantial repeal of article I, section 24, and article I, sect......
-
Serrano v. Priest
...section 6 would prevail because it is more specific and was adopted more recently. (Id.; County of Placer v. Aetna Cas., etc., Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 182, 189, 323 P.2d 753.) Consequently, we must reject plaintiffs' argument that the provision in section 5 for a 'system of common schools' req......
-
Manufacturers Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, No. S031022
...commanded administrative expertise applied to controlled industries. (Ins.Code §§ 12404-12412; County of Placer v. Aetna Cas. etc. Co., 50 Cal.2d 182 [323 P.2d 753]; Division of Labor Law Enforcement v. Moroney, 28 Cal.2d 344 [170 P.2d 3].)" (Chicago Title, supra, 69 Cal.2d 305, 322-323, 70......
-
Taxpayers To Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Pol. Practices Com., No. S012016
...controls and takes priority over a general statute encompassing the same subject"]; County of Placer v. Aetna Cas. etc. Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 182, 189, 323 P.2d 753 ["the later specific statute controls"]; Board of Supervisors v. Simpson (1951) 36 Cal.2d 671, 673, 227 P.2d 14 ["a particular ......
-
Lance W., In re, Cr. 23551
...In re Thierry S., supra, 19 Cal.3d 727, 744, 139 Cal.Rptr. 708, 566 P.2d 610; County of Placer v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 182, 188-189, 323 P.2d 753.) 3 The majority's reading of section 28(d) results in a substantial repeal of article I, section 24, and article I, sect......
-
Serrano v. Priest
...section 6 would prevail because it is more specific and was adopted more recently. (Id.; County of Placer v. Aetna Cas., etc., Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 182, 189, 323 P.2d 753.) Consequently, we must reject plaintiffs' argument that the provision in section 5 for a 'system of common schools' req......
-
Manufacturers Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, No. S031022
...commanded administrative expertise applied to controlled industries. (Ins.Code §§ 12404-12412; County of Placer v. Aetna Cas. etc. Co., 50 Cal.2d 182 [323 P.2d 753]; Division of Labor Law Enforcement v. Moroney, 28 Cal.2d 344 [170 P.2d 3].)" (Chicago Title, supra, 69 Cal.2d 305, 322-323, 70......
-
Taxpayers To Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Pol. Practices Com., No. S012016
...controls and takes priority over a general statute encompassing the same subject"]; County of Placer v. Aetna Cas. etc. Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 182, 189, 323 P.2d 753 ["the later specific statute controls"]; Board of Supervisors v. Simpson (1951) 36 Cal.2d 671, 673, 227 P.2d 14 ["a particular ......