The Mason County journal. [volume] (Shelton, W.T.) 1886-1927, 1895-02-15
Purifies
he Blood
Iood,. D:rr. the after-Iinner pill and
sOOu S PlllS family cathartic. CSC.
The Treasurer's Bend.

Following is the opinion of the
County Attorney in relation to the
attack on the Bond of Co. Treasurer
Maxwell, which the County Commits
sioners decided to settle finally by
dismissing the complaint, as ground
les:
To the Honorable Board of County Commits
sioners OF Mason County.
Gentlemen.-In answer to your request for my
official opinion concerning the attack that is
made on the official bond OF County Treasurer
w. H. Maxwell as appears by the petition of
w. S. Taylor, David Shelton and Thos. Webb
fled with your Honorable Board on the 9TH of
February, 1895. have examined the matter very
carefully and find that said w. II. MaxW ell
was elected to the Office OF County Treasurer OF
Mason County at the general election Nov 6,
1894. That thereafter he filed his oath of Office
and executed and presented to the Board of
Commissioners at a special session thereof on
Dec. TO- 1894, his official bond as required by
law. That the said Board of Commissioners
duly examined said bond and upon the advice
OF the then Prosecuting Attorney of the County,
duly approved the same and directed that it be
filed and recorded in the Office of the County
Clerk as required by law, That thereafter ON
l4th of January, lS95, said Maxwell duly enter
ed upon the discharge of his duties as such
County Treasurer and is now acting as such.
The petitioners now seek to show that the said
bond was When presented for approval and ap-
proved so defective In form and execution and
that the sureties were so insufficient that the
said bond should not have been approved by the
said Board
But they, the petitioners, fail to point ont
any valid objections to the form of the bond or
to allege any defects or facts occurring since the
approval of the bond that would affect the
validity OF the said bond. l say this because in
my opinion the said bond in so far as its form
and execution is involved, is in strict conform-
~ to the Statue. A distinction should be kept in
mind between the bond proper and that part
which is annexed Il ereto known as the jusifi-
cation of the sureties thereof. This latter part
mot strictly speaking any part of the obliga-
ton OF the makers of the bond The bond is
the contract of the principal aud sureties with
the state for the performance of the duties Of
tle Treasurer The justification is annexed 10
the bond for the purpose OF testing the sufi-
cheney OF the sureties. To this part of the doct-
ment some purely technical objections might
As for example that the sureties do not state
that they are each residents of Mason County
But it is to be presumed in favor OF the due
performance OF official duty, that the Board
fund on enquiry that they, the sureties, we've
such residents. 1t is also objected that some of
the wives of the sureties are not named in the
body OF the Bond, though they 40 unite with
their husbands in the execution (signing) of the
bond. 1t is contenGed that this is a defect /
think not, and SO far as the validity OF the bond
Is concerned, this in no manner affects the
hi ding force thereof. The wives of married
men need not assist their husbands IN making
contracts. 1t may be true that the community
property of that is the community real estate Of
married persons cannot be bound upon iudg-
ment which is not for community debt unless
the wives in same way unite in the execution Of
the contract ratify or approve the same
But all this has nothing to do with the validity
Of this bond. If forfeiture should occur and
suit be brought OH such contract-a contract to
which the wives Were not parties, and iude-
ment obtained against the husbands, it is posi-
Bile, that upon asnowing by the wives IL at such
Judgment was not for community debt and
upon contract which they did not execute or
approve, that the sale of community lands
would be enjoned at their suit But this is n
question that is res integra in this state as our
supreme court has meyer passed upon it. AS
YOU will see that this does not affect the validity
OF this bond we are considering.
1t is claimed that the aggregate sum in which
tae sureties justify does not equal double the
amount OF the penalty of the bond but whether
this is necessary or not las to which express
no Dpinion) it is too late now to consider this
'iiJecton, for it does not affect the validity of
ne bond, DIS binding contract OF the makers
shereof These matters are presumed to have
'een considered by the Commissioners when
hey approved the bond, end theil decision |
thereon IS final on the question.
Ny conclusion therefore is that this bond is a |
binding contract between the State of Washing |
ton ana the makers thereof and that for none of |
the objections stated in the petition OF Mr.. |
webb, Mr.. Shelton and Mr.. W, S. TAYLOR can II |
re set aside by this board in any form of pro- |
aeeding. recommend taat the petition be dis |
missed. Very Respectfully,
c. W. HARTMAN, Pros. ATTY. |