The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1897-07-01
NO EVIDENCE YET
Continued from Fifth Page.)

, bond. Both sections seeming to indi-
cate what Is in fact the law in relation
to bonds everywhere, that the same
should be signed by both principal and
Eureties.
The supreme court of this state have
frequently stated in very positive Ian
guage that the terms Of a bond must
be strictly construed in favor of a sure
ty." And again in Vol. % OF the SUI
Spreine court reports, page 49S. they state
many courts hold that surety on a
bond is liable only within the strict let
Ter OF his bond" bu, no courts hold that
surety is liable upon the reasonable
implication of his bond, that the bond
must in all cases speak for itself. and
sureties may always stand upon its lit
eral terms and its reasonable implica-
lions, and if these do moi make the sure
ries liable nothing else can. No far
stretched equities nor over-strained con-
structions are allowable against sure
ties; their bond expresses their contract;
sets forth their obligations and defines
their liability, and we are not al liberty
70 resort 70 eXtraneous matters TO en-
large their liability
Previous 10 that time the supreme
court of this state had in the case OF
Hiram Riddel VS.. School District y. re-
ported in the Is Kan. az page 1ss. held
that where bond was given for the
treasurer of a school district, which
among its provisions provided: "a con-
ditlon OF the above obligation is that
Wnen the said treasurer shall faithfully
discharge his duties as prescribed bv
Jaw, then this obligation to be void. 9TH
erWise to remain in full force and er-
1ec- The tredsurers term of office ex-
pred at the spring election. 1893. at
winch time he was reelected for the en-
SUING year out took no new oath of
oHlce and gave no new bond, the county
commissioners understanding thar the
ofo pond continued in force and effect
and the supreme court in that case held
1hac the sureties were only liable unon
me oond Tor the first term of office and
any oefa4calon during the second term
OF once the sureties could not be hell
sor' tnat the terms of The bond could
not De enlarged or increased.
Inc supreme court of Indiana i,
case reported in the 92 Indiana report
page 24o, say The law is too well SET
4ieo to admit of discussion that SIRE
ties are favorltes of the law and are not
pouiiu beyond the strict terms OF the en-
easemeni; thai their liability is not to
De extended by implication in the terms
OF rnear contract. which contract is said
% De 'strictissimi juris'"
A long liSr re- oo.a.
every supreme court of the United tates
as reported in Volume "A American and
English Encyclopedia of law page $50.
ma the following law to be laid
down by the American and English En-
cycopeda of Law in Volume a mage
74l: That if the instrument creating
Hhe contract Of suretyship is incomplete
ana imperfect on its face and there has
Oeeh a premature delivery of it without
auifhlng a condition required by the
surely, the latter will not be boun6 ;"
And therein cited find a case. the 18th
Nebraska, page 4, wherein the supreme
court OF that state states: "a statutory
Ocno must conform substantially 20 the
requirements of the statutes in respect
To Its penalty. conditions, form and mum
Der OF eureties. The statute in such
cases enters into and forms a part of
the contract, and a surety may insist.
as defense in an action on such bond
signed by but one surety where two are
required that he is not liable thereon.
the bonds not being perfect on it's face,
unless he waive the defect.
The supreme court of Nebraska in
HAT case again calls the attention that
where a bond contains in the obligatory
part the names of several persons as
sure1es, If a part sign the same with
an understanding, and on the condition
that Ii is not to be delivered to the
ooliges until It is signed by all whose
names appear in the obligatory part
thereof as suretfes, it will not be valid
as to those that do sign until the condi-
lion IS complied with If that be true
and the decision above quoted is good
law, and 1t seems to have been follow
ed by authorities and ,ext books as
leading case upon this subject, and the
parties who had signed the bond are not
liable, how could we hold in this case
that people who simply qualified upon
q separate paper are liable upon a bond
they did not sign?
From the American and English En-
cyolopedia OF Law, Vol. ., page 457 we
find the case Of Wildcat Branch VS.. Ball.
IS Ind. 213 cited and approved, which
decision among other things states the
following to be the law:
"First-It is necessary 10 the valid ex-
ecution OF bond that it should be sub
scribed and delivered
"Second-Te subscribe is to write the
name under, to write the name at the
BOTTOM or end Of writing.
Where the name OF a party appears