The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1897-07-01

day OF October, 1892 Mir. Doran as coun-
u treasurer submitted a bond TO The
| county commissioners which was moi
sa .isfactory 10 the county commission
ers, and a new bond was ordered. and
on the 17,h day of October, 1892. new
bend was submitted TO the county COM
missioners which was approved by them
on the 17th day Of October, 1882. which
said bond was not signed by rhe princi.
pal, John Doran, but was properly sign
| ed by the sureties.
| l again find from the records that in
1894 as Mr. Doran was 10 enter upon his
second term as county treasurer. ne
again submitted new bond to the coun-
~ commissioners for their approval;
that this new bond was signed on its
face by Mr.. Doran and by no other An
dividual; that attached to the said bond
to be and which was in fact very de-
fective affidavit OF suretyship, whereby
certain individuals stated that as sure
ties upon the foregoing bond they were
worth certain amounts. These facts
have learned from an examination Of
the bonds and from the county clerk
who has charge of the bonds.
And it is my judgment, First that the
sureties upon the first bond are not re-
leased by the failure Of the county trea-
surer himself to sign the bond; the law
being that a principal is liable for his
own acts, and it is my judgement that
if there was any defalcation during the
first term Of Mr. Doran that the suret1es
are liable therefor. And in support Of
my theory I desire to call your attention
TO the following decision from the su-
preme court of Wisconsin in the case of
Douglas county VS.. Barlow, 70 Wiscon-
sin, page GAL, the same being a suit up
on the bond of a county treasurer, where
in the supreme court says among other
things:
Whereas, The bond of county trea-
surer recites that he and the sureties
are each severally held and firmly bound
and do bind themselves severally and
firmly by these presents, the failure of
the treasurer to execute the bond does
not render it void and the sureties are
liable thereon which is a case exactly
in point with the first bond Of Mr. Do
ran that was approved by the county
commissioners.
The question upon the second bond
has troubled me considerably, and after
thorough investigation, I have arrived
az the conclusion that the person who
qualified upon the second page OF the
said bond are not liable as sureties there
on. and I herewith state my reasons
therefor.
Section 1881 OF the Revised Statutes OF
rne state of Kansas provides among oth-
er things:
That a county treasurer shall be
elected in each county for the term of
TWO years, whose term of office shall
commence the second Tuesday in Octo-
Der after his election. and the county
commissioners shall fill the vacancy oc-
curing between the first Tuesday Of
July of the same year and the second
Tuesday of October of the same year;
and such treasurer shall, before he en-
tiers upon the discharge OF his du-
ties. execute to the state of Kansas a
bond, with three or more sufficient sure
ties 10 be approved by the board of
county commissioners, and in such PEN
al sum as they shall direct, which bond.
with the appreciation of the board en-
dorSed thereon by the clerk. shall be
filed in the office of the county clerk"
Section 1892 provides the form of the