The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1897-01-28
THE SUR6TIES MUST Ply.
Supreme Court Decides in Favor of
the County in the Case
Against Bondsmen.
Law Down the Law in Such a Man.
ner as to Practically in
struCt Verdict.


struCt a Verdict.
The Supreme Court has reversed
Judge Webber's decision in the fam
GUS bond case of the Board of County
Commissioners of this county against
the sureties of the Citizens Bank of
this place, an action to enforce the
bondsmen to pay $3,642.74 and inter-
est due the county from the bank at
the time that that institution became
insolvent. The reversal is complete
and practically declares that while a
new trial is to be had there is no es-
cape from the county taking judgment
for the fnll amount declared to be due.
The Court holds that the sureties we're
only liable for money deposited dur
ing the second term for which their
bond was given but declares that all
of the money of the county in the
bank was deposited during the term
of that bond.
Mr.. Justice Mitchell wrote the sylla
bus and opinion and it is in the fluent
style of that justice. He gives his
tory of the whole proceeding, together
with the ground on which the lower
court directed verdict for the sure
ties, SO well-known to the readers Of
this paper. He recites the giving of
the draft to the county treasurer just
before the new bond was made out.
The draft was on New York bank in
which the Citizens Bank had no bal
ance and the Supreme Court states
that if it had been presented at that
bank it would have been dishonored.
On May 9th the draft was returned
and the amount was placed to the
credit of the county in the bank. Sub
sequently, from time to time, the
county made deposits aggregating$l4
618.16, and during the same time drew
out various sums aggregating SIG, ,317.-
Il, and leaving the balance due the
county, including the $5,341.79 depos-
tied by the New York draft, at the time
the bank failed, $3,64274. The Su-
preme Court declares that if the S.
341.79 is excluded the county drew
out more than it deposited during the
term for which the bond in suit was
given. The sureties contended that
the condition of their bond had been
fulfilled they were not liable for
defaults previous to their bond, and
the Court thinks that their contention
is partly correct, but holds that they
continue liable for such funds until
they are paid, although payment may
not be demanded until after such
term has expired. Continuing, the
Supreme Court says:
"The next contention of the defend
ants is that the arrangement between
the bank and the county treasurer, by
which the latter accepted the draft on
| New York, held it, and then deposited
it, amounted to nothing, and in nc
way affected the respective rights OF
obligations of either the county, the
bank, or the sureties. This we think
is also correct. The original debt o1
the bank to the county remained the
same as if no such mere paper formal
tiles had been resorted to. When
these paper transactions we're complet
ed on the 9th of May the sureties or
the bond in suit were no more liable
: for this $5,341.79 than they we're be-
fore.
'The further and last contention o.
the defendants counsel is that the
: general rule as to the appropriation O.
payments has no application to the
case as against them; that the county
:; cannot insist on any of the payments
made by the hank during the term O.
the bond being applied towards salts
flying this balance due for money de
j. posted during the previous term; bu
on the contrary, that they are entitled
Highest of all in Leavening Str