Case ID: mass_9/html/0241-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      The Court\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*The President, Directors, and Company, of the Worcester Bank versus Thomas Reed and Others.
    Where the condition of a bond was, that one appointed to an office in a bank should well and faithfully perform all those duties and services in the bank which, from tjine to time, should be required of him by the president, &c., of the bank, and truly account for all moneys intrusted to his cave, and should also continue in said service for the term of two years, unless sooner discharged, it was held that the said condition protected the bank so long as the officer should continue to serve under the appointment; the clause respecting the two years operating only to prevent his quitting the service within that period.
    Debt on bond, the condition of which was in these words, viz.. “The condition of this obligation is such, that whereas Joseph Dodds, of Rutland, &c., hath been appointed, by the president and directors of the Worcester Bank, accountant in said bank; now, if the said Joseph Dodds shall well and faithfully perform all those duties and services in the said bank which, from time to time, shall be required of him by the president and directors of said bank for the time being, and shall truly and faithfully account for all moneys which may be intrusted to his care, and shall also continue in said service for the term of two years, unless sooner discharged, then the above-written obligation to be void; otherwise, to remain in full force and virtue.”
    Upon oyer had of the bond and condition, the defendants pleaded in bar that the said Dodds did well and faithfully perform all those duties and services in the said bank which, from time to time, were required of him by the president and directors of said bank for the time being, for and during the term of two years from the date of said writing obligatory; and did also truly and faithfully account for all moneys intrusted to his care within the said term, and did also continue in said service for and during the said temi of two years, according to the form and effect of the condition aforesaid.
    To this plea the plaintiffs demurred generally, and the defendants joined in demurrer.
    The cause was argued at the last September term in this county, by Bigelow and Lincoln for the plaintiffs, and by Blake and Mills for the defendants.
    
      Lincoln in support of the demurrer.
    This is, in effect, a plea of omnia performavil; but, in fact, it does not cover the whole condition of the bond. The plain intent, and the * true construction of the condition, is, that Dodds should faithfully perform his duty so long as he continued in the service of the plaintiffs, and that he should continue in that service for two years, unless sooner discharged. If he had continued ten years, the defendants assured his fidelity. The last condition is wholly distinct, and independent of the preceding ones. If there has been a failure in any branch of the condition, the bond is forfeited, and the defendants are liable.
    
      Blake and Mills,
    
    for the defendants, contended that, from the whole condition taken together, it was apparent that the defendants engaged for the fidelity of Dodds during the two years only. Had the intention been otherwise, it would have been so expressed, and especially since, by the mentioning of two years, it was obvious that the most natural construction would limit the engagement to that term. 
    
    
      Bigelow in reply.
    In Lord Arlington’s case, the time was expressly stated in the preamble, and this limited all that followed. Here the whole is indefinite, except the independent covenant, that Dodds should not quit the service of the plaintiffs until after two years. This limitation was plainly introduced for the benefit of the plaintiffs, that they might have the use of Dodds’s services, when he should become more expert in the business, and that they might not be exposed to the inconvenience of frequent changes in their domestic and confidential servants.
    The action was continued for advisement; and now,
    
      
       1 Sound. 66, Butter vs. Wigge. — 3 Wils. 530, Wright vs. Russell. —2 W. Black. 934, S. C.—2 Saund. 412, L. Arlington vs. Merricke. — 1 D. & E. 287, Barker vs. Barker.
      
    
   The Court

expressed their opinion that the condition of the bond protected the plaintiffs so long as Dodds should continue to serve them under that appointment; and that the clause, respecting his continuance for two years in the service of the plaintiffs, was independent of the other parts of the condition, and that its effect was only to prevent his quitting the service before the expiration of that period.

Defendant’s plea had. 
      
      
         [The distinction, in principle, between this case and L. Arlington vs. Merrick, (2 Sound. 412,) Liverpool Waterworks Company vs. Atkinson, (6 East, 507,) St. Saviours vs. Bostock, (2 N. R. 175.) Hassell vs. Long, (2 M. & S. 363,) Peppin vs. Cooper, (2 B. & A. 431,) Leadly vs. Evans, (2 Bing. 32, 9 Moore, 102,) is not very obvious. And the principle settled by the above cases was distinctly recognized, and many of the cases cited with approbation, in The Boston Hat Factory vs. Messenger & Al., (2 Pick. 223;) and in The Dedham Bank vs. Chickering & Al, (3 Pick. 341,) Parker, C. J., said, " We do not doubt the soundness of the principle. It has been adopted in this commonwealth, and many of the authorities are cited in The Boston Hat Factory vs. Messenger.— See Amherst Bank vs. Root, 2 Metc. 522. — Ed.]