Case Name: The Board of Commissioners of Rice County v. Blackman E. Lawrence, et al.
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1880-01
Citations: 23 Kan. 283
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Board of Commissioners of Rice County v. Blackman E. Lawrence, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 283–284

Head Matter:
The Board of Commissioners of Rice County v. Blackman E. Lawrence, et al.
This action was commenced on November 25, 1876, by The Board of County Commissioners of Riee County against Blachman JE. Lawrence, county treasurer of said county, and his sureties on his official bond. By consent of parties, a change of venue was taken to Reno county. In January, 1878, a trial was had, the jury failed to agree, and thereupon the case was referred to A. R. Scheble, of Hutchinson. On April 8, 1878, the referee duly reported his conclusions of fact and law: Lawrence was elected on November 4, 1873; the bond was dated November 22, 1873; the official te,rm of Lawrence commenced on the first Tuesday of July, 1874, and expired July 4, 1876; on November 2, 1875, he was reelected for the term commencing October 10, 1876; he continued in office until November 25, 1876; no person was selected by the county commissioners to fill the vacancy between the first Tuesday of July, 1876, and October 10, 1876, and Lawrence held all of said time; a settlement was had between the county board and Lawrence, November 23, 1876; there was a deficiency upon this settlement of $14,293.72, but the testimony failed to show when this deficiency occurred. From his findings of fact and conclusions of law, the referee reported the plaintiff should recover of the defendant Lawrence the said sum of $14,293.72, with interest and costs, but held that the other defendants, the sureties, were not liable. The plaintiff moved the court to set aside the report, which was overruled. Thereupon the court confirmed the report, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff against B. E. Lawrence, for the sum of $14,293.72, interest and costs. Plaintiff duly excepted, and brings the case here.
J. W. White, and Ansel it. Clark, for plaintiff in error.
Houk & Brown, and W. J. Fuller, for defendants in' error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
The judgment in this case must be affirmed, under the decisions of Horton v. Watson, ante, p. 229; Riddel v. School District, 15 Kas. 168; Monger v. Commissioners of Harvey Co., 22 Kas. 318; and Johns v. Hastings, 22 Kas. 464.