State ex rel. Jefferson County v. Sheible
| Decision Date | 01 July 1942 |
| Docket Number | 38012 |
| Citation | 163 S.W.2d 559 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. JEFFERSON COUNTY v. SHEIBLE et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
W Oliver Rasch, Pros. Atty., of Festus, and M.C. Matthes, of Hillsboro, for appellant.
Schubel & Schubel and R.E. Kleinschmidt, all of Hillsboro, for respondents.
Jefferson County brought this action against its county treasurer on his official bond to recover from him and his sureties $ 358.26, which amount he is alleged to have overcharged and wrongfully retained from the county. The court below sustained defendants' demurrers and dismissed the petition. The county has appealed.
The demurrers challenged the validity of the official bond on the ground that its condition was meaningless and did not comply with statutory requirements.
A county treasurer is required by law to give two bonds. Section 13795, R.S.1939, Mo.R.S.A. § 13795, requires a bond to the county in a sum not less than $ 20,000 with approved resident land-owners as sureties 'conditioned for the faithful performance of the duties of his office.' A second bond is required for the handling of school moneys. Section 10400, R.S.1939, Mo.R.S.A. § 10400, demands a bond to the State, with sufficient security in double the probable amount of school moneys that shall come to the treasurer's hands, and 'conditioned for the faithful disbursement, according to law, of all such moneys as shall from time to time come into his hands.'
The treasurer, after his election, gave but one bond with twenty-nine individual sureties in which he endeavored to combine the requirements of both. We note in passing that the deaths of defendant sureties Stovesand, Brackman and Plass have been suggested in this court. This bond was entitled 'Official Bond' and ran to the State of Missouri for $ 160,000. It was presented, filed and approved as the treasurer's official bond. As its condition it contained the following:
Respondents claim this is but an obligation to give two official bonds some time in the future, and in nowise meets the requirements of the statutes and is void. A literal reading of its condition would leave this impression. However a bond to give bond is neither known nor contemplated by the statutes relating to the bonds to be given by a treasurer.
The bond before us was the only bond given. It was submitted and filed for the purpose of complying with the statutes. It is needless for us to comment on the awkwardness in drafting the terms. Nevertheless, an intention to comply with the requirements of the statutes is apparent. The required conditions prescribed by the two statutes are stated clumsily but plainly enough, especially if the words 'give bond' are eliminated in both instances. The intention is further indicated by reference to 'Rev.Stat. 6767.' True, this section must refer to the Statutes of 1899 but in view of the circumstances even this discrepancy in time is not surprising. This section is identical with the present section 13795 of the 1939 Statutes requiring the faithful performance bond.
Therefore, giving effect to the intention of the parties, we hold this bond to be valid, and a sufficient compliance with both statutes even though separate bonds are prescribed.
The general rule requires that a bond should be construed to carry into operation the reasonable intention of the parties and such construction should be given when it can be fairly done, to support rather than defeat the bond. 11 C.J.S., Bonds, § 40. Furthermore, the rule is established in this State 'where a bond is given in pursuance of a statute, courts will, in enforcing the bond, read into it the terms of the statute which have been omitted, and will likewise read out of it terms included in it that are not authorized by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial