The herald., 1898-12-31
A COURTHOUSE TANGLt
UNCERTAINTY REGARDING LE-
GALITY OF OFFICIAL BONDS
"A DISTURBING ISSUE RAISED
County Government Act Forbids Ac-
ceptance of Foreign Company's
Sureties on Official Bonds

Some of the county officers ard in much
doubt regarding the validity of the bonds
of their successors and do not know whether
TO turn over their offices to them or not
Their attention was first called to the mat
ter by the announcement OF Mayor Phelan
of San Francisco that surety companies
would not be accepted on the bonds of
| county officers, who' would be compelled to
find personal bondsmen in order to comply
with the requirements of the county gov
ernment act of 1897, section 66, which pro-
vides:
That bonds and sureties of such officers
| ii. e. county officers) must, before the bonds
can be recorded and filed, be approved by
| the judge, or judges, if there be more than
one, of the superior court. All persons offered
as sureties, on official bonds may be exam
ined on oath touching their qualifications,
and no person can be admitted as surety on
any such bend unless he is resident and
| freeholder within the state and is worth
| in real estate ad personal property, or both
situate in this state, the amount OF his under
| taking, over and above all sums fort which
| he is already liable, exclusive OF property
| exempt from execution and forced sale. All
official bonds shall be recorded in the office
OF the county recorder. and then filed and
kept in the office of the county clerk. The
official bond of the county clerk shall, after
being recorded, be filed and kept in the
office of the county treasurer.
| In Los Angeles county all but three of
the newly elected county officials have FLED
surety company bonds, and these have been
| accepted by the judges of the SUI
perior court as satisfactory, and
have been filed according to law
with the proper authorities, the county
clerk acting as custodian of all official bonds
but his own, which is deposited with the
county treasurer If the county government
act repealed the laws previously existing,
under which foreign surety companies were
allowed to become sureties on official bonds
of those elected to public office in this state,
! then only three of those chosen at the No
vember election in this county for the more
| important offices are entitled to serve dur
| ing the ensuing term.
| Examination of the bonds filed discoses
the fact that f. S. Field, Alexander Cald-
| well and l.. I. Holland alone filed personal
bonds, or bonds with individual sureties
| residing in the state, and otherwise con-
forming to the requirements of the act in
question. The American Surety company
of New York and the Fidelity and Deposit
company of Baltimore, Md, were the ac-
cepted sureties on the remaining bonds The
complete list is as follows:
Personal bonds-E. S. Field, supervisor
$4,000; Alexander Caldwell, assessor s25,-
| 900; L. T. Holland, coroner, $50Oc.
Bonds of Fidelity and Deposit company
of Maryland-Ws A. Hammell, sheriff, $780,
000 c. G. Kellogg, public administrator,
s5O,O0O; r. d. Wade, recorder, $4,000; j.
C.. Rives, district attorney, $4,000; John
II. Gish, tax collector, $l0O, 900.
Bonds of American Surety company of
New York-Orray w. Longdon, supervisor.
$4,000; John II. Strine superintendent of
public instruction, $4,000; j. H. Smith
county surveyor, $4,000; Mark G. Jones,
county recorder, Sl50,OOO; T. T.. Nichols,
county auditor $4,000; c. w. Bell, county
, clerk, $25,000.
The bonds aggregate in amount $3.50, ,00O
of which $4,000 only Isl guaranteed by per-
sonal bondsmen, the Maryland company as
| suming S245, 600 and the New York company
| S240, 900, or $4S5,CO0 altogether.
| Previous to the passage Of the county gov
ernment act section 955 of the Political Code
and sections 1856 and 1857 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, passed in their present
form by the legislature of 1889, permitted
the use OF surety company bonds, but the
county government act, adopted later, is
regarded by many as having repealed these
| sections.
Under the decision of Kahn VS.. Sutro,
volume Ill, California reports, the assessor,
district attorney, superintendent of schools,
sheriff, county clerk, recorder, coroner and
public administrator were designated as
county officers, no reference being made to
supervisors county surveyor, county treas
urer, county auditor or county tax col
lector, but all these officers come under the
operation of the law in question, and the
subject of inquiry now is whether the ac-
ceptance of surety company bonds by the
county judges, in opposition to the require
ments OF the county government act, gives
to them legal effect; or whether, in fact
the act itself did not repeal the sections of
the old law permitting the acceptance of
foreign surety companies as slireties on Of
icial bonds.
Some of the county officers, realizing the
responsibilities which rest upon them and
fearing to relinquish their places to those
elected as their successors on account of the
tangled provisions of the law regulating the
acceptance Of bonds, are talking about
"holding over. Ii this should be done,
petitions for 'writs of mandate would be
filed by those newly elected with the county
clerk and the matter would be brought
speedily to the attention of the superjo,
court As the judges have already passed
upon the bonds as satisfactory, it is pre-
sumed they would grant the petitions and
order the old officers to surrender thei,
places to those regularly elected.
This would relieve those now in office from
responsibility afterwards, whatever the ulti
mate legal disposition of the controversy
Should they desire to contest the matter
they could appeal to the supreme court