Evening journal., 1897-11-09


and will sustain, loss by reason of their
surC,yEhip fer said collector Of taxes,
and as the term for which the SAID col |
lector was appointed has expired, your
petitioners pray that he may be re-
strained from further collection Of
taxes committed to him for collection. |
in accordance with the provisions Of |
chapter S42. volume 15. Delaware laws. |
(Signed)
JOSEPH STOECKLE,
BERNARD BONNER,
HUGH LYNCH,
THOMAS TOY,
JOHN s. ROSSELL, T. o.
Sworn and subscribed before Jsnles
Monaghan, notary public, May 20, 1891
"On the 22rd of May two days later,
statement was submitted to the Levy
Court in support Of the petition, by TN
attorney Of the sureties. containing
figures and calculations based upon an
examination Of Doueherty's accounts
made April % and % by expert ac-
couniants selected by the surCtles, and
an allegation that since the examlna
tion of the books Il had transpired that
certain items then supposed TO be un-
paid had in fact tecn paid. and Tint
the suretles were apprhensive that
other similar errors might yet be ans
covered. IL was further urged in this
paper that a more thOrough eXamina-
ticn he made Of the duplicate of the
late cCllestcr and a proper person he
appointed to close up his accounts. and
that their petition be granted without
delay
"On the same day the Levy Court re-
/ fused the prayer OF the suretics and f.
nally disposed OF their petition by
adopting a mCticn for It's lndehnite
rOstponement.
"No further payments were ever
made by Dougherty, and a subsequsnt
b examination Of his accounts by the
{ Levy Court revealed frauds or mistakes
in the March settlement which I'm.
J creased their final estimate OF his In,
p dobtedness to the sum Of $16.S53.43. fo
which an execution was subsequent.
4 issued.
! THE cocnplainants allcge in thea
I bill That upon the presentation 10 sale
iLevy Court of said petition and state
E ment, said Levy Court did not then. no.
1 at any time thereafter, inquir
r into the matter. as u was il'
e. duty CT the said Levy Court under tn
j said act in that behalf so 10 do. bu
wholly neglected and refused TO maxi
= such inquiry.
+ "That the Levy Court had calle
Y upon their attorney and legal hdvise
/. for his opinion as to what action shoul'
|. be taken by the said court and that n
l. had advised them i'm substance that al
= act passed by the Legislature on IN
;, 2Snh OF April. 1891. known as th
= Five Commissioners Bill was incon
slstent with and had repealed the &C
n under the privisions Of which the pet
o tiOn of the sureties had been presenreC
y bv alhoMshing the Office of tax colleC
a tor. and that he therefore advisei IN
Levy Court not to take any acticn
le the premises upon said petition an
le statement.
n "Thrt upon hearing this opinion an
z, advice. which was given en- the 22n
-e dav of May. 1891, the Levy Court in
" med,ately postponed indefinitely the u
N fitfon OF the sureiies, being cOnirolf
Nv Inc opinion OF their attorney TN
q, thev had no right to make any inunii
IL MI All: enid that his opinionl upon whit
N thcv acted. precluded the making
he anv inouiry in compliance with n
ne law which he declared to be repealed
is "The decision Of the Court OF Erro
ID and Appeals in the case Of Smith
", Riding. Q Houst. page 235, decided Jul
u 10. 1891. settled beyond a doubt tn
me so-celle1 Five Commissioners ~
I'D did not affect the power OF the Lel
al Court to act On The promises under q
provisions Of the statute above ci.ed.
as "Complainants urge that this acti'
n of the Levy Court was an impaiime
&C. Of the obligation Of the contract eXls
he ing between the complainants, as sur
u tics as aforesaid, and the State Of Del
ed ware. whereby the suroties were
! Heved from .heir liability in Doug
erty's bor1.
er The DEFENDANTS deny that The cpl
~ ion q. their attorney had the enc
ak upon the action of the Levy Cor
by claimed by the complainants. and
cf lega that ahe Levy Court did inqu
'a- into The matter presented by the pc
irt tion and statement in accordance WI
ne it's duty under the provision Of the
10 of Assembly in that behalf.
zS' The chancellor then cited a lar
number Of cases bearing on the mat
zee at issue, and continued:
by 1T is claimed by the defendants Il
bic assuming that the contention OF
lae complainants is correct, that the lie
d Court did not inquire into the mat
is nrcsenfed Inv the petitlon of the su
vas Ties as required by the act OF March
1877, and assuming further that this
his was mandatory upon the Levy Court, a
lrt, that the Levy Court improperly
cm elined to grant the prayer Of the su
Tue ties, yet nevertheless, such breach
the duty could not operate TO discharge
ed sureties from their liability, because
the well-established principle of
'ty that sureties in official bonds OF pul
the officers are not discharged because i
yas TO them occurs through the acts
so.- omissions. the fraud or wrong doing
other public officers. unless the wro
we. ful act or omission inheres in and
ntil made part CT the condition Of the o.
thel