Case Name: ERIE COUNTY v. BALTZ et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-03-04
Citations: 109 N.Y.S. 304
Docket Number: 
Parties: ERIE COUNTY v. BALTZ et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 109
Pages: 304–310

Head Matter:
ERIE COUNTY v. BALTZ et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
March 4, 1908.)
1. Executors and Administrators—Liabilities of Decedent—Joint and Several Obligation—Right of Action.
The rule that in an action against the personal representative of a deceased joint debtor it must be alleged and proved that the debt cannot be collected against the surviving joint debtors, has no application to an action on an undertaking, the obligation of which is joint and several.
2. Same—Parties.
A complaint on an undertaking, the obligation of which is joint and several, uniting the surviving sureties and the personal representatives of deceased sureties, is not bad as for a misjoinder of parties defendant.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 22, Executors and Administrators, § 1783.]
3. Action—Joinder—Single Cause of Action.
A complaint on an undertaking, the obligation of which is joint and several, uniting the surviving sureties and the personal representatives of deceased sureties, does not allege two separate causes of action, one against the survivors and the other against the deceased sureties and their personal representatives, nor' one against the deceased sureties and another against their personal representatives, but the cause of action is one and the same against all.
4. Counties—Treasurer—Liabilities on Official Bonds—Defenses.
The defense to liability on an undertaking given by a county treasurer binding the sureties and their personal representatives that surety died before the treasurer’s default is not well taken.
5. Same—Pleading—Construction.
A complaint, on an undertaking given by a county treasurer, alleging, in each of 10 counts, loss of moneys resulting from illegal dealing therewith, and a failure to pay the same over to his successor, and that the treasurer neglected to perform his duty to make reports, and that the treasurer “by reason of the facts aforesaid,.in addition to the obligations hereinbefore set forth, incurred the penalty of $1,200 provided by statute, which amount this plaintiff is entitled to recover from these defendants in addition to (the amount of money actually lost as alleged),” does not state a cause of action, in each count, both under County Daw, § 147, Laws 1892, p. 1777, c. 686, as amended by Laws 1901, p. 290, c. 112, requiring a county treasurer to deliver to his successor all money in his hands, imposing a penalty for failure to do so, and authorizing his successor to recover the same in the name of the county under direction of the State Comptroller, and under section 148 providing that if the treasurer shall neglect to make any report required he shall forfeit not less than $100 nor more than $500 to be recovered by the district attorney in the name of the county, but, notwithstanding the allegation that the treasurer failed to report, states but one cause of action in each count, and that under section 147, which construction of the complaint is fortified by the fact that each count was designated as but one cause of action, and by the fact that the action was brought by the treasurer's successor, under direction of the State Comptroller, and not by the district attorney.
6. Same—Liability of Subeties.
Under County Law, § 147, Laws 1892, p. 1777, c. 686, as amended by Laws 1901, p. 290, c. 312, requiring a county treasurer to deliver to his successor the books and papers belonging to the office and all moneys in his hands, imposing a penalty for failure to do so, and authorizing his successor to recover such forfeitures, books, and moneys on the official undertaking of the treasurer, the sureties as well as the treasurer are liable for the penalty.
Williams and Robson, JJ., dissenting in part.
Appeal from Special Term, Erie County.
Action by the county of Erie against George Baltz and Jacob Bold and others, as executors of the will of Philip Plouck, deceased, and others. Judgment overruling a demurrer to the complaint, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, WILLIAMS, KRUSE, and ROBSON, JJ.
Arthur W. Hickman, for appellants.
Philip A. Laing, for respondent.

Opinion:
KRUSE, J.
The undertaking given for the faithful discharge of the duties of the defendant, Baltz, as county treasurer of Erie county, is a several as well as joint obligation. The rule, therefore, that in actions against the personal representatives of a deceased joint debt- or it must be alleged and proved that the debt cannot be collected against the surviving joint debtors, has no application to this case. That, and the other questions in this case, are fully discussed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Williams, and, with the views expressed therein, we all agree save in one respect. We differ over the conclusion there reached, that causes of action to recover penalties, under section 148 of the county law (Laws 1892, p. 1777, c. 686), are pleaded in the complaint. If such conclusion is correct, then manifestly the complaint is objectionable in improperly uniting such causes of action with others therein set forth. It seems to me, however, that there is but one cause of action stated in each of the 10 separate statements of facts, and that is for the failure by the defendant, the county treasurer, to pay over to his successor money and property held in trust by him, and to recover the value thereof, with interest, and the penalty, as provided by section 147 of the county law. The statement interjected therein, that the defendant county treasurer failed to report, does not, it seems to me, make a separate cause of action to recover an additional penalty under section 148 of the county law. That, and the other allegations showing that the county treasurer failed in his duty, in respect to this money and property, may not have been necessary, or even proper in the complaint. The evident purpose of these allegations was to show that the defendant county treasurer misappropriated the money and property so held by him in trust, and converted the same to his own use, thus putting it out of his power to deliver the saíne over to his successor in office.
Very true, the mere failure to pay over makes a cause of action, but his allegation of a failure to report, and other like allegations, should not be taken out of their connection with the statement of facts as a whole, to spell out a separate and independent cause of action thereon, when it seems evident that it was not so intended. When read in connection with the other allegations, I think there is but one cause of action alleged, or attempted to be stated. This view is fortified by the fact that each statement of the 10 statements of facts is designated as but one cause of action, and the nature of the cause of action is characterized by the fact that it is brought by a successor of the defendant county treasurer, in the name of the county, and is authorized and directed by the State Comptroller, as is provided by said section 147 of the county law, while the action for a penalty for a failure to report, under section 148 of the same law, must be brought by the district attorney.
I think the demurrer was properly overruled, and that the interlocutory judgment entered thereon should be affirmed, with costs, with leave to plead over upon the usual terms.
McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, J., concur.