Case ID: nc_52/html/0382-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Battle, J. Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State on the relation of R. G. SNUGGS v. JOHN F. STONE, et al.
    
    Where one was superintendant of common schools for several consecutive years, giving bond for each year, and then gave a bond for 1853, it was Held, that all the amount that had come to his hands, that he could not show had been misapplied or wasted’in the previous years, was recoverable on the last bond.
    Where a superintendant gave a bond lor a given year, and continued in office for several years afterwards, without giving bond for the subsequent years, it was Held, that by force of the acts of 1844 and 1848, he and his sureties were liable on the last bond given, for school money received by him in the succeeding years, and not accounted for.
    ActioN of debt, tried before Shepherd, J., at the last Spring Term of Stanly Superior Court.
    John F. Stone was appointed superintendant of common schools, by the County Court of Stanly county, and gave the bond sued on, at its February Term, 1853, with the other defendants his sureties, in the sum of $3000. The conditions of the said bond are as follows: “ Now, therefore, if the said Stone, shall well and truly perform the duties of chairman aforesaid, and shall honestly and faithfully account for and pay over all monies that may come into his (hands) by virtue of his appointment, during the time for which he has been elected, to all such persons as may be by law entitled to recover the same at his hands, then,” &c.
    Stone continued to act through the years 1854 and 1855, but gave no bond after that of 1853. He had been chairman for several consecutive years immediately previous to 1853, and for those years had given bonds with different sureties.
    
      After this suit was brought, a reference was made to a commissioner to state an account, and from the report made by that officer, it appeared that the sum of $816.07 was in Stone’s hands as a balance of school money remaining at the date of the bond sued on, and that other amounts of school money came to his hands in 1854 and 1855, which he did not account for. The non-payment to his successor, the relator in this action, of the said sum of $816.07, and the sums received in 1854 and 1855, are the breaches alleged of the conditions of the bond declared on.
    The defendants’ counsel insisted, that the sum of $816.07, received before the bond of 1853 was executed, was not recoverable on that, and that the sums received after the official year 1853 had expired, were also not recoverable on that bond.
    The Court ruled against the defendant on both these points, and his counsel excepted.
    Yerdict for the plaintiff for $1864.10, for which judgment was given, and the defendants appealed to this Court.
    
      R. H. Battle, for the plaintiff.
    No counsel appeared for'the defendants.
   Battle, J.

The only questions which we deem it necessary to consider, are two, which appear in the bill of exceptions ■filed by the defendants, and in the opinion expressed on these by the Court below, we entirely concur.

■ 1. The first is, that the principal defendant was not chargable with the amount $816.07, which was in his hands when he was elected and gave the bond now sued on, in February 1853. He had been chairman of the board of snperintendants of common schools for several consecutive years, immediately pre-* ceeding this time, and, as it is not shown that he had wasted or misapplied the money which he had received, in his official capacity, we must suppose that he had it in Iris hands, ready to be paid to his successor, at the time above mentioned. As he was himself re-elected, he is to be regarded as his own successor, and consequently, to have received, in his new official capacity, what it was his- duty to pay in his old. Viewed in* that light,, it is-clear that the bond, which he then gave*, made' him and his sureties responsible for that amount.

2. Tb© second' exception», that the defendants were-no-t responsible for the- defaults- of the principal defendant, during-the subsequent years of 1854 and 1855, is fully answered by the decision of this Court in the late case of the Chairman of Common Schools v. Daniel, 6 Jones’ Rep., 444. When the defendant, Stone, was elected and gave-bond,in February 1853, his office was, by the express provisions of the acts-of' 1844 and 1848, to continue for one year, and, until another’ should be appointed, and-, of course, his-bond continued. a9 a. security for the faithful discharge of his duty during all. that time. One of these duties, and not the least important, was-the payment into the hands of his successor, of such moneys-as had been received by him as an officer, and. not expended, according to law. For his default in this respect,, he,.and the other defendants, his sureties, are clearly responsible* and the judgment to that effect given in the Court below must be affirmed.

Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.