Case Name: The State of Ohio v. Elnathan Corey
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1864-12
Citations: 16 Ohio St. 16
Docket Number: 
Parties: *The State of Ohio v. Elnathan Corey.
Judges: Beinkerhoee, C. J., and Scott, White and Welch, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 16
Pages: 15–18

Head Matter:
*The State of Ohio v. Elnathan Corey.
.In an action against a surety, on a township treasurer’s school bond, conditioned expressly for the faithful disbursement of school moneys, a judgment for defendant will not be reversed, where the pleadings and evidence show a default by the treasurer only as to “township funds," in general terms, without specifying that any part thereof was school money.
Error to the court of common pleas of Marion county. Reserved in the district court.
The original action was brought on a township treasurer’s school bond.
The petition avers -that on the 15th of December, 1859, Thomas C. Corey was appointed township treasurer to fill a vacancy, and gave bond, with the defendant as one of his sureties. The bond was made payable to the State of Ohio, for the sum of $2,500, and. conditioned as follows: “Now, if said T. C. Corey, as treasurer, shall faithfully disburse and pay over, according to law, all such, school or other funds and moneys as shall, from time to time, come into his hands for school purposes, then this obligation to be void -r otherwise to be and remain in full force.” It is further averred in. the petition, that the treasurer entered upon the duties of the office, and that “ a large amount of school and other moneys came into his hands, as such treasurer, which he did not faithfully disburse and pay over according to law; and that on the 1st of April, I860,, he “converted to his^wn use, of the aforesaid moneys, the sum of $1,696.58, by means whereof the said bond became forfeited, and\ the defendant liable to pay the aforesaid sum.”
The defendant, in his answer, denies that the treasurer “converted to his own use, of the moneys of said township, said sum. of $1,696.58, or any other sum;” and denies that there is anything, due from the defendant on the bond.
The bill of exceptions containing all the proof, shows that all • the evidence given upon this issue, on the trial, was as follows: “On the 15th of February, 1860, Thomas C. Corey received of township funds $1,494.81.2. On the 9th day of August, 1860, *the-treasurer received township funds, $938.94. He paid out, for the township funds, $148, on orders, August 15,1860. He died August 19,1860, liable for $1,696.58 not accounted for.” It further appears-that Thomas C. Corey was elected treasurer on the first Monday of April, 1860; that he executed a new bond, which was not approved; and that he acted as treasurer until his death.
The case was tried to the court, and judgment was rendered for the defendant.
A motion for a new trial was overruled.
This petition in error was filed in the district court, and reserved for decision in this court.
0. Bowen, for plaintiff in error.
H. 0. G-odman and J. & S. II. Bartram, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Day, J.
The view entertained by the court of this case, as presented by the record, renders It unnecessary to determine some oi the questions that are discussed in argument.
The action in the court below was brought against the surety on; a township treasurer's school bond; and if liable thereon at all, he-must be so on the words of his bond. 6 Ohio St. 501; 17 Ohio, 565.
The condition of the bond is, by its terms, limited to the faithful, disbursement of all moneys that may come to the hands of such treasurer "for school purposes." Does the record affirmatively show a breach of this bond? For, if not, the judgment for the defendant,- for obvious reasons, can not be reversed.
The averment in the petition that a large amount of " school and. other moneys " came to the hands of the treasurer, is not denied in the answer; but the averment that he converted to his own use-$1,696.58 of said moneys, constituting the alleged breach of the-bond, is denied. It was material for the plaintiff to sustain this issue; and for that purpose, he proved that a larger amount than-said sum of $1,696.58, of "township funds," came to the hands of the treasurer, and'that he died leaving that specific amount unaccounted for. 1
*There was no direct proof that any part of said moneys were " school funds," or moneys that came to the hands of the-. treasurer for "school purposes;" nor was there any proof whatever, to that effect, unless the term " township funds," necessarily embraces "school funds." If that be so, it is equally true that many other funds are, also, included in the township funds; such, as road moneys (S. & C. Stat. 1570, sec. 25); and, in the language-of the statute, "specific funds" levied for "township purposes;" also for the "support of the poor." S. & C. Stat. 1458, sec. 52;. Id. 1571, see. 28.
If, therefore, various funds are embraced in the term, " township-funds," the proof failed to show what specific fund was left unaccounted for, by the treasurer at his death; much less did it show affirmatively that it was the " school fund."
But, while the statute provides for a township fund, it also makes ample provisions for a school fund. S. & C. Stat. 1835. Under the-provisions of the statute, township treasurers are required to give-, two bonds; one to the state for the faithful disbursement of the school funds (S. & C. Stat. 1356, see. 27), and the other to the trustees of the township, conditioned for the faithful paying over all moneys that may come to his hands. S. & C. Stat. 1569, sec. 19. For school funds he is required to make settlement with the hoard .of education (S. & C. Stat. 1356, sec. 26), and, for township funds .generally, he must settle annually with the township trustees. S. & C. Stat. 1568, sec. 15. It would seem, from these statutes, that two •distinct funds are contemplated, and that school funds are neither •called nor included in the moneys known as, " township funds." If this be so, the evidence not only entirely failed to prove a breach • of the bond in suit, but, as proof of default in relation to funds other than school funds was immaterial, it did not oven tend to sustain the material issue. In any view, a breach of this bond was not affirmatively shown.
So far, then, from its being error in the court of common pleas, •to render judgment for the defendant, we do not see how, upon •this record, it could properly do otherwise.
Judgment affirmed.
Beinkerhoee, C. J., and Scott, White and Welch, JJ., concurred.