Case ID: mass_8/html/0232-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "* By the Court.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Abraham Bigelow, Clerk, &c., versus Ebenezer Bridge.
    A bond given by a county treasurer, for the faithful discharge of the duties of his office, is intended to protect the public during the year for which he was elected.
    Debt on bond. The parties agreed to submit the case to the determination of the Court upon the following facts, viz.: “ The said 
      Ebenezer Bridge, being elected treasurer of the county of Middlesex in May, 1790, executed the bond declared on, which has the following condition underwritten, viz.: “ The condition of this obligation is such, that whereas the above bounden Ebenezer Bridge is chosen treasurer of the said county of Middlesex, and hath taken upon him that trust, —Now, therefore, if the said Ebenezer Bridge shall faithfully discharge the duties of the office of treasurer of said county, and account for all sums of money which he shall receive for the use of the said county, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise to remain in full force.” — The said Bridge was annually elected treasurer of said county from the year 1790 to the year 1806, inclusive, and annually accounted as treasurer with auditors appointed by the Courts of Sessions and Courts of Common Pleas for said county, every year during his continuance in said office, except the last. But no other bond was ever given by him as treasurer of said county. There is due to the county from the said Bridge, as the balance of his accounts for" the year 1806, the sum of eighty dollars. — If, upon these facts, the Court shall be of opinion that the said Bridge is liable in this action for the above-mentioned balance, he is to be defaulted, and judgment rendered against him for that sum with interest; otherwise the plaintiff is to become non suit.
    
      Stearns for the plaintiff.
    
      Hastings for the defendant.
   * By the Court.

The bond in this case appears to have been given to the plaintiff, as clerk of the peace for this county, pursuant to the provisions of the statute of 1785, c. 76, § 1. But the choice of county treasurer being by that statute annual, it is apparent that the bond required by it was intended for the protection of the public, so long only as the person chosen should continue in office in virtue of such election. A new bond should regularly have been taken for each several year, for which the defendant» was elected. If this bond were valid against the defendant to cover the deficit of his last official year, it would be equally valid against his sureties; but they could never contemplate their contract as binding them thus indefinitely. And indeed it is to be presumed that the plaintiff did not consider them as held to answer the present demand, as he has not joined them with their principal in this action. But the principal in a bond is no further bound than his sureties. Let the plaintiff be called.

Plaintiff nonsuit.