Reynolds v. Hall
| Decision Date | 31 December 1832 |
| Citation | 1832 WL 2425,1 Scam. 35,2 Ill. 35 |
| Parties | JOHN REYNOLDS, Governor of the State of Illinois, plaintiff in error,v.JAMES HALL, TIMOTHY GUARD, JOHN TILLSON, JR., CHARLES SLADE, FRANCIS PRINCE, CHARLES PRENTICE, JAMES B. CAMPBELL, ALFRED W. CAVARLY, and J. M. DUNCAN, defendants in error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
THIS cause was tried at the October term, 1831, of the Fayette Circuit Court, before the Hon. Theophilus W. Smith. The verdict of the jury was in favor of the plaintiff in error, for the sum of fourteen hundred and fifty dollars and forty-eight cents. Judgment was rendered upon this verdict.
ALFRED COWLES, for the plaintiff in error.
CAVARLY and MCROBERTS, for the defendants in error.
This was an action of debt brought against James Hall and his sureties, on his official bond, given for the faithful performance of his duties as Treasurer of the State of Illinois, to which office he had been elected on the 28th day of December, 1828, by the vote of the legislature. The bond is dated on the 16th day of January, 1829, and was approved by the plaintiff, in his executive character, on the 22d day of the same month. The condition of the bond, after reciting that the defendant, James Hall, had been elected Treasurer of the State of Illinois for two years, is as follows: “Now, if the said James Hall shall well and faithfully perform the duties of his said office, for and during his said term, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force.”
The defendants replied--1st. General performance. 2d. That the defendant, Hall, had faithfully accounted for and paid over all moneys received by him, for which his sureties, as State Treasurer, were chargeable in this action, according to the tenor and effect of their bond. 3d. Set-off for certain sums, for which the State is indebted to said Hall for moneys deposited in bank, and certain expenditures of said defendant for and on account of said State; to which the plaintiff rejoined and took issue.
On the trial of the cause, a report of the situation of the State Bank of Illinois, at Vandalia, dated on the 1st January, 1831, signed by the said Hall, as treasurer, showing, among other things, that he had received, on account of said bank, considerable sums from the branch cashiers of said bank, in the notes of said bank, was offered in evidence; to the admission of which report as evidence, the defendants objected; which objection was sustained, and to which opinion of the Court, in refusing to admit the report as evidence, the plaintiff excepted. The bill of exceptions contains other matters to which it is not necessary to refer, as the additional points reserved in the bill have been, on the argument, abandoned by the plaintiff's counsel. The only point relied on, among the causes assigned for error, is the rejection of the report offered as evidence.
On the part of the sureties of Hall, who are co-defendants, it is insisted that no evidence of the receipts of the funds or effects of the State Bank, by Hall, by virtue of the act of the legislature of 23d January, 1829, or any subsequent law of the State, imposing on Hall, the late treasurer, the duties of cashier of such bank, could be introduced as legal evidence, to charge them with a liability in case of a misapplication of such effects or funds of the bank by the late treasurer, and this is, as I understand, conceded to be the only point to be examined and determined.
In the consideration of this question, it is necessary to recur briefly to the Constitution of the State, creating the office of treasurer, and the act of the legislature, defining his duties. The office of State Treasurer is created by the 21st section of the 3d article of the constitution; and the act of the 24th March, 1819, “ defining the duties of Auditor and Treasurer,” was the only law in force, at the time of the execution, delivery and approval, and acceptance of the bond. The 7th section of the act requires the treasurer to give bond in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, and the residue of its provisions relate to the performance of duties, in regard to the fiscal operations of the State Treasury, and nothing else.
Under this law, then, we are to determine the liabilities of the sureties and whether they can be held responsible for other duties cast upon the treasurer, by the act of 1829, after the execution, approval, and acceptance of the bond.
Without examining the question which might here arise, as to what duties might thus be cast upon the treasurer, and their appropriateness, it will be sufficient to inquire into the character of the act of 23d January, 1829, entitled “ An act to amend...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Eitel v. Lindheimer
...349 Ill. 291, 182 N.E. 383;Rothschild v. Village of Calumet Park, 350 Ill. 330, 183 N.E. 337;Thompson v. Alexander, 11 Ill. 54;Reynolds v. Hall, 1 Scam. 35); cases where no repeal of a former statute was involved (Illinois Zinc Co. v. Industrial Comm., 366 Ill. 480, 9 N.E.2d 212;Vulcan Deti......
-
National Surety Corp. v. State
... ... Ind. 240; Miller v. Stewart, 9 Wheat. 680; White ... v. East Saginaw, 43 Mich. 567; 29 Cyc. 1460; People ... v. Thompkins, 74 Ill. 482; Reynolds v. Hall, 2 ... Ill. 35; Commissioner v. Holmes, 25 Va. 771; 12 Cyc ... 1057; First Nat. Bank v. Gerke, 68 Md. 449; ... Spokane County v. Allen, ... ...
- Shreffler v. Nadelhoffer
-
Stephani v. the Catholic Bishop of Chicago.
...429; 2 Kent's Com. 557; Potter v. O. & L. Mut. Ins. Co. 5 Hill, 147; Wells v. Carpenter, 65 Ill. 447; Story on Contracts, § 805; Reynolds v. Hall, 1 Scam. 35; Jesson v. Wright, 2 Bligh, 1; Winter v. Perrott, 6 M. & G. 357; Ellmaker v. Ellmaker, 4 Watts, 89; Canal Trustees v. City of Chicago......