Case ID: ohio-st_39/html/0635-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Follett, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Reed v. Board of Education.
    On a school district treasurer’s bond, conditioned that the treasurer “ as treasurer of said school district, shall faithfully disburse, according to law, all such funds as shall from time to time come into his hands,’’ the sureties are liable when the treasurer fails to deliver to his successor in office the school funds that had so come into his hands, and in finding the amount of such liability, there should be included the amount of drafts, and certificates of deposit, which, when received, would have been paid on presentation, and which were received as cash by such treasurer.
    Error to tbe District Court of Stark county.
    Cyrus 3L Greiner, for a number of years, was elected and acted as treasurer of the Union School District of Alliance, Stark county. On April 19, 1875, having been re-elected treasurer for one year, Greiner gave his official bond, with plaintiffs in error as sureties. The bond was not accepted by the Board until July 6th, 1875, when it was approved and filed. The bond was in the penal sum of $15,000, and was conditioned, “ That, whereas, the said C. K. Greiner was, on the 19th day of April, A. D., 1875, duly elected treasurer of the board of education, of Alliance Union School District in the county of Stark, and State of Ohio, for the term of one year from the 19th day of April, A. D., 1875, and until his successor shall be elected and qualified :
    Now, if the said C. X. Greiner, as treasurer of said school district, shall faithfully disburse, according to law, all such funds as shall from time to time come into his hands, then this obligation shall be void and of no effect; otherwise to be and remain in full force and virtue in law.”
    Greiner, however, from April 19th, 1875, to July 6th, 1875, continued to act as such treasurer, and to receive and disburse moneys belonging to the district.
    On July 6th, 1875, he had as treasurer $6,806.09. After July 6th, 1875, and charged to himself as of September, 1st and 16th, 1875, and February 24th, 1876, he received $32,597.46; the most of which was cash. Of this sum $20,000 was for bonds sold, on which he received $10,000 cash, and perhaps $10,000 in drafts on New York and Philadelphia ; but if this were so, the drafts were paid and he got the proceeds. An indefinite part of the same came to him through certificates of deposit for taxes collected by George Fissler, treasurer of Stark county, and which money for taxes was deposited with the private banking company of Greiner, Sourbeck & Co., of Alliance; for which money the certificates were issued to Fissler, and he transferred them to Greiner. Greiner was then a partner of the Banking Co., and owned one-fourth part of it, and was the principal manager of its business operations. A part, if not all, of these certificates were taken up by the bank and credited to Griener’s account with the bank, which bank continued in active business until about February 25,1876, when it failed. After July 6, 1875, when the bond was approved,Greiner disbursed but $22,055.18, leaving in his hands as shown by his accounts $17,203.50. On June 6, 1876, after failure to pay this sum to his successor in office, suit was commenced on the bond for the amount of the penalty. ' On trial by the court without a jury, the court did not allow and charge the parties with any part of the $6,806.09 in Greiner’s hands when the bond was given (although he had thereafter disbursed $22,055.18), but took all the disbursements from what Greiner received after he gave bonds and gave judgment for the balance, being $10,542.28 and interest, in all $12,071.28 and costs. No exception was taken by the Board, and no error is alleged by the Board.
    This judgment was affirmed by the district court, and this case is here to obtain the reversal of these judgments.
    Lynch, Day & Lynch, for plaintiff in error.
    
      J. A. Ambler, for defendant in error.
   Follett, J.

The plaintiffs in error are sureties on a treasurer’s bond. The sureties on the bond of a public officer are bound with their principal as original promisors, aud are liable for defaults committed by their principal after the commencement of the term of office for which they became sureties; and their liability is measured by the terms of their contract.

Baylies on Sureties and Guarantors, 4,150; Miller v. Stewart, 9 Wheaton, 680, 703; State v. Corey, 16 O. S. 17, 18; Alber v. Froehlich, Ante 245.

The plaintiffs in error bound themselves that Greiner “ shall faithfully disburse according to law, all such funds as shall from time to time come into his hands ” as treasurer. The court tried the case without a jury, and the court found that Greiner, as treasurer, received $32,597.46, after the bond was approved, and disbursed but $22,055.18; and then had $10,542.28, which last sum and interest made up the judgment.

This court will not disturb the judgment except upon clear and satisfactory showing that the judgment is wrong. This is a familiar rule of law, and repeatedly so held-by this Court. Merrick v. Boury, 4 Ohio St. 60; Ralston v. Kohls, 30 Ohio St. 92; Landis v. Kelly, 27 Ohio St. 567.

Plaintiffs in error say the word “funds" does not include the taxes paid for which the certificates of deposit were given, that certificates of deposit are not funds.

But neither the tíme when Greiner received the certificates^ nor the amount of the same charged as cash that went to make up the $32,597.46, is clearly (if at all) shown by the testimony. This is a sufficient answer. But a certificate of deposit is a receipt of a bank for a certain sum of money received upon deposit, and when the depositor wishes his funds to be running on interest,” ho usually takes a certificate of deposit. Their nature and the ordinary modes of business show that they are intended to represent moneys actually left with the bank-for safe keeping, which are to be retained until the depositor actually demands them.” They are generally made negotiable. Daniel on Negotiable Instruments, § 1698.

It seems to be admitted that drafts are funds. But apply to this case the rule of law, that payments made and not applied by the parties will be applied by the Court so as to secure the precarious part of a debt, and the plaintiffs in error would be held, not only for the judgment, rendered, but for the full amount of their bond. Field v. Holland, 6 Cranch 8; Planters' Bank v. Stockman, 1 Freeman’s Chy. 502; Stamford v. Benedict, 15 Conn. 437; Gaston v. Barney, 11 Ohio St. 506, 511, 515.

In Inhabitants of Sandwich v. Fish, 2 Gray 298, 301, the court holds liable the sureties on the last year’s bond of a treasurer who brought forward a balance in his hands at the beginning of the year.

This bank was a g-oing bank until about February 25, 1876. There was no “ treasury" in which Greiner was required to keep the funds ; lie could keep them where he preferred so he disbursed them according to law. For a proper disbursement of these funds the bond-was given.

There was no error, against the plaintiffs in error, in the finding or judgment of the courts below.

Jv,dgment affirmed.