The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-02-06

ing over the United States Court for t!.e Middle District of Alabama, in favor of the County of Montgomery against the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Mary land. surcties on the bond of J. J. Coch- rar. County Treasurer
 The Judgment was for the enti.e amount sued for by the county with iG- terest from January 8. 1901. the date of conversion. Tho interest amounted to se2. .5S.
 Counsel for the Fidelity and Deposit Company immediately announced an dp- peal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals. They were given sixty days in which to prepare their bill of excep- tions and the appeal bond was fixed at $l20, ,o00.
 The case has twice been to the Court of Appeals Twice the appellate court has reversed the decision of the lower coart and twice the judgment of the county has been increased, until yesterday tine county gained a complete victory by get ting a judgment for the entire amount sued for.
 This suit was brought by the County of Montgomery. in the City Court of Mont gomery. against John J. Cochran and the Fidelity and Deposit Company Of Maryland Cochran being the Treasurer of the county and the Fidelity and De- posit Company of Maryland being cor poration under the laws of Maryland and the surety on the bond of Cochran as County Treasurer. The purpose of tle suit is to recover damages for certain alleged breaches of the official bond.
 The cause was removed from the State Court to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Ala bama, on the application of the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, February 15, 1902, upon the ground Of prejudice or local influence
 At the May term 1902 of the Circuit Court the plaintiffs motion to remand for want of jurisdiction having been over ruled, a trial was had and resulted in verdict and judgment for sum much less than the amount of, the plaintif claim That judgment was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals and new trial was had in the Circuit Court at the May term, 1903, the result again being a judgment for much less than the amount of the plaintiffs claim. From the judg- ment each party prosecuted writ Of errn:.
 The suit as first tried involved two funds. The general fund and special fund called the road and bridge funG Upon the first trial the plaintiff recovered judgment for the general fund in the sum of $36, ,s69 .92, including A,64S.12 of in- terest; but under the rulings of the court | the plaintiff recovered nothing upon that l trial on account of the road and bridge fund The $36S69.92 judgment was volun- tarily paid by the defendants. | After the reversal of the former jud6- rnent, and before entering upon the sec ond trial in the Circuit Court. the plaint- | if renewed and insisted upon the motion l to remand the cause of the State COul on the ground that the defendant Coch- | ran, being a scitizen of the same State as | the plaintiff, the court was without 1uris- diction. The court overruled the motion and the plaintiff reserved an exception.
 Cochran was elected County Treasurer in August, 1900. and entered upon the du- ties of the office September 1, 1900. unGCr the official bond sued on and described in the complaint, the Fidelity and De posit Company of Maryland being ais I sole surety.
 The bond was approved by the Judge of Probate August 24. 1900 On the fiji st | day of September. 1900. Cochran. by ih- | strument of writing duly executed by | him, appointed John P. kohn his agent | and clothed him with authority to traas- | act all the business and discharge all the l duties of the County Treasurer. Cochran lives twenty-four miles from Montgom- | cry. and had no place of business here | other than the banking house of Josiah | Morris and Company, where he kept the 1 funds of the county on deposit to his credit as County Treasurer. from Ser l tcmber 1, 19OO to January 9. 1901, when | the bank suspended and closed it's doors. | Between these dates Kohn his deputy, | kept the books and attended to all the l duties of the office. Kohn was an em- | ploye of the bank, which was owned by F. NJ. Billing. Cochran personally re- | ceived from his predecessor the money, | in the form of a certified check upon another bank. which was in the TreasuI | September l, 1900, and did not personally receive any other money as Treasurer | prior to January 20, 1901. but up to that date Kohn as his deputy received and paid out money and kept the books of l the Treasurer.
 Cochran, prior to entering upon the du- | ties of the office. had an agreement With | Billing that he would deposit tine funds of the county in Billlngs's bank and that | Billing should have the treasurer's bLs- mess transacted. In pursuance of this agreement the power of attorney was eX- l ecutcd to Kohn. The bond company knew at the time the bond was executed | by it, that the money was to be depos- tied in the Josiah Morris and Company | ba anl:
 At the time of the failure of the bank | Cochran had on deposit therein funds of I the County amounting to $l41,5o4.SO, in cluding therein the road and bridge fund then amounting to $1o4,5s2.4 42: but all of it had. at the time of the trial, been duly accounted for except the road and bridge fund, and of that fund Cochran had l. lected from the bank and duly accounted for the following sums at the following dates. viz: July ?, 1901, $lS,07I.O0; June II, 1902, $13.014.05.
 The controversy related to the residue of this fund amounting, at the date of the trial to s96 154.5S, arrived at by stating ani calculating the account against the Coun- ty Treasurer as follows:
 19)l Jan. s. To amount proceeds sale of $1O0,OO0 Sill, ,l09 5S 1901. Jan. 25. By amount of war
 rants paid to date................. 6,517 716 ;9n. Jan. 25 To amount at date
 of bank failure INSTRUMENTATION. 104,592. .42 1901. July 2. To interest from
 January 25, 10ol.................... 3.649,lO
 
 $1OS,24.52 1S1, July 9 By account collected
 from bank and accounted for
 (p. 72) ......................... 13,O74O9
 
 .. S95.167.47 I9a2. June 14 To interest from
 July 2, 1901 ........................ 7.232.70