Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1893-01-14

4
cover certain sums Of money which he
received from time to time during his
/ specified term Of office, from banks, and
{ banking associations and firms, as COM
pensadon paid by them on loans Of pub
+ lie funds, to, or deposits with such
banks associations and firms. dor
convenience these depositaries are re
ferred to in this opinion under the gen
cral designation OF banksl
1t is strongly urged on behalf Of the
defendants that. although the treasurer
may be liable TO the state in some
/ form of action for the money thus re-
ceived by him on account of such loans
or deposits, yet, unless the sureueS are
also liable therefor On the bond in suit
there can be no recovery in this action
against the treasurer This is probably
correct statement of the law. AT least,
for the purposes OF this ease il win he
So regarded, In determining whether
the suretieS are liable on the bond for
the alleged breach thereof, il will not be
forgotten that their liability must not
be extended 0y mere implication beyond
the letter OF their undertaking. This
court has always held rgidly to this
rule In it's latest delverance on the
subject, in Dlinkwater VS. Eau Claire
SO n. w. Rep, 673, in the opinion lis
Mr.. Justice Pinney it il said; THE
liability OF a surety is s.rictisSimi iurs,
and cannot be extended by implication.
He has a right to stand on the exact
words OF his contract the bond speaks
for itself and the law is that it shall
50 speak, and that the liability of sure
ties is limited by the exact letter of the
bond, and if the words will not make
them liable nothing can. There is no
construction, no equity against sureties
Dobhn VS. Bradley II Wend., 422;
State VS.. Medary, II Ohio, 5G5 Myers
VS.. Parker, Ohio (state) SOL; Super.
yisors VS.. Bates, II n. Y, 242.'
In the light Of the above rule we are
to determine whether there has been
any breach of the condition OF the bond
in suit, 10 the injury Of the state, for
which, under legal rules, the sureties
can be held liable on their bond Ii
there has been such breach, it is Of the
condition that said Edward @. McFct-
ridge shall deliver over to his successor
in Office all moneys be-
longing to his said Office AS matter
of course if he has not done SO there Is
also a breach of the condition that be
shall faithfully discharge the duties Of
the said Office of state treasurer" one OF
which duties is to deliver to his success
sor, ut the expiration of his official tenu,
all moneys belonging to his Office re-
naming, or which should be in his
hands. 1t win be assumed for the put-
pose Of the case that # the deposits in
question were made without lawful
authority, the interest tEreon was IL
legally received by the treasurer, and
that in such case is no liability therefor
on the official bond of the treasurer. Ir
the money received by Treasurer NJ
Fetrdge from banks as interest on the
state funds loaned TO or deposited with
them, was lawfully received by him,
and if the same belonged to his office as
state treasurer, that is TO say, If such
interest is of right the money of the
state ana not Of the treasurer in his in
diyidual capacity, it was his duty 10
deliver or pay over the same TO his sue
cessor IN office and his failure TO do So
is breach of the condition Of his bond
for which he and his Suretes are liable
in an action at law thereon, TO the eX
tent Of the money thus received ana not
accounted for Hence, the question s
was the money received by Treasurer
McFeuidge from the various banks rs
the consideration Of his depositng the
public funds with them, lawfully receiv-
ed By him, and If so does it belong to the
treasurer individually, or to his said
office Of treasurer that is, to the state
If we correctly understand the argu,
ment on the part Of the defendants, Il
is that on either Of the three PROPOSE
tons or hypothesis the money here in
controversy belongs to the treasurer
individually These propositions are.
Cd The legal title to the public money
which came to the hands Of Treasurer
McFetrdge is in him and not in the
state; that the relation between him and
llle SuLte WIS lIEil OF utDIDI anu tIbfllDI
only; and hence that it is no concern
Of the state what the treasurer did with
the public money, or how much profit he
made out Of it, provided he accounted
properly for what he received that his
obligations to the state where fully per
formed when he paid or delivered to the
persons entitled thereto the amount
Of money which he received in the first
instance and hence, that the sums re-
ceiyed by him from the banks In which
he deposited the public funds, as inter
est on such deposits whether paid to
him as a gratuity or pursuant to a pre-
yiOus agreement or understanding, be
longed to him individually as incident
TO the legal ownership Of the money.
o. The deposit Of the public funds
in banks by Treasurer McFetTidge was
without authority Of law, and it was not
in the contemplation Of the state. or the
sureties in his official bond, that he
would make such deposits and receive
interest thereon. Hence liability for
such interest, even though the state