Case Name: MENDOCINO COUNTY v. JOHN W. MORRIS et als.
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1867
Citations: 32 Cal. 145
Docket Number: 
Parties: MENDOCINO COUNTY v. JOHN W. MORRIS et als.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 145–158

Head Matter:
MENDOCINO COUNTY v. JOHN W. MORRIS et als.
Complaint on Official Bond.—If the complaint on an official "bond in a suit against the principal and his sureties avers the execution of the same by both principal and sureties, and a copy of the bond is annexed to the complaint which does not contain the signature of the principal, the complaint is good unless demurred to specially for being ambiguous in this respect.
Execution of Official Bond.—If the complaint on an official bond avers the due execution of the same by both principal and sureties, and the answer takes issue on the averment, and verdict and judgment are for plaintiff, the judgment will not he disturbed on appeal upon the judgment roll on the ground that what purports to he a copy of the bond annexed to the complaint does not contain the signature of the principal.
Plaintiff in Suit on Official Bond.—If the complaint on the official bond of a County Treasurer avers that the money for which the Treasurer is in default belongs to the county, the action is properly brought in the name of the county.
Approval of Official Bond.—The official bond of a County Treasurer is not invalidated because approved by the County Judge instead of the Board of Supervisors.
Breach of Official Bond.—An averment in a complaint on a County Treasurer’s official bond that he received money belonging to the county and retains it, and refuses to deliver it to his successor in office, is a sufficient averment of a breach of its conditions.
Judgment on Bond.—In an action against the principal and his sureties on an official bond, if the bond contains no promise to pay in coin, judgment can only be rendered payable in money generally. This rule applies to the principal as well as sureties.
Transcript on Appeal.—A copy of the minutes of the Court, as kept by the Clerk during the progress of the trial, should not be inserted in a transcript on appeal.
Appeal from the District Court, Seventh Judicial District, Mendocino County.
The bond sued on was joint and several. The plaintiff averred in the complaint that John W. Morris was Treasurer of Mendocino County from the 7th day of March, 1864, until the 5th day of March, 1866, and that he received as Treasurer, for the use and benefit of the county, in gold coin, fifteen thousand dollars, which was the property of the county, which sum he had unlawfully in his possession, and that he had refused to deliver it to his successor in office, although he had often been requested to do so. Plaintiff had judgment against both principal and sureties, payable in gold coin. Defendants appealed.
The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
George Cadwalader, for Appellant.
The bond set out in the complaint, while signed by the sureties, was not signed by the principal, John W. Morris, and is, therefore, void. No difference can be detected between the bond in this case and the one subject to review by this Court in the case of the People v. Hartley, 21 Cal. 585, wherein Mr. Chief Justice Field said : “Being a joint bond, the signature of the principal was essential to its validity and binding force upon the sureties. As we said of the law in the case of the City of Sacramento v. Dunlap, 14 Cal. 423, so we may say of this. The liability of the sureties is conditional to that of the principal. They are bound if he is bound, and not otherwise. The very nature of the contract implies this.” (17 Mass. 591; 2 Pick. 24; 4 Watts, 21; 11 Vermont, 447 ; 9 Texas, 1; People v. Breyfogle, 17 Cal. 509.) It was approved by the County Judge, who had no jurisdiction. (People v. Evans, 29 Cal. 429.) This, unaided, is a vital defect. (Sections 2, 3, and 4, Act of July 28th, 1850; Hittell’s Digest, 445.) Section eleven of the same Act provides that such defects may be cured —by suggestions of the same in the complaint—which was not done in this cause, and therefore the bond is void. (6 Cal. 639; 9 Cal. 286; 21 Cal. 585.)
J. G. McCullough, Attorney-General, for the Respondent.
Appellants cannot raise for the first time in this Court the objection that the bond was not signed by the principal, J. W. Morris. The complaint says that it was, and if it had been denied, it was a question of fact to be determined by the evidence. It was not necessary for the complaint or copy of the bond attached thereto to set out any of the names subscribed, but simply to set forth the body of the instrument, and allege (as it does) that J. W. Morris made, executed, and delivered it. For aught this Court may know, the original is subscribed by Morris and his name omitted in the copy through mistake. (10 Cal. 347.) A very clear and apparent difference can be detected between this bond and the one in the case of the People v. Hartley, 21 Cal. 585. The words “jointly and severally firmly by these presents ” are contained in this bond, and were omitted in the other. These words create a joint and several liability. (People v. Love, 25 Cal. 530 ; People v. Evans, 29 Cal. 429.) In the case of the People v. Edwards, 9 Cal. 292, this Court said: “The defect in the approval of the bond could not avail the defendants. The object of requiring the approval is to insure greater security to the public, and it does not lie in the defendants to object that their bond was accepted without proper examination into its sufficiency by the officers of the law.” (9 Cal. 292; 17 Cal. 503, 509 ; 13 Cal. 502; People v. Evans, 29 Cal. 429.)

Opinion:
By the Court, Sawyer, J.:
This action is against the principal and his sureties on the official bond of the County Treasurer of Mendocino County. The appeal is from the judgment, and there being no statement or bill of exceptions, the only questions presented arise on the judgment roll. There was no error in overruling the demurrer to the complaint. A copy of the bond purports to be annexed to the complaint as Schedule A. Said copy does not contain the signature of Morris, the principal. It is claimed that there is no cause of action shown against Morris for the want of his signature, and that, for the same reason, the bond is void as to the sureties. It is unnecessary, however, to determine the effect of the failure of the principal to execute the bond. The complaint distinctly avers the execution of the bond by all the defendants. The defendants, in their answer, have taken issue upon the averments, and the verdict is in favor of the plaintiff on the issues. It must be presumed that the omission of the name of the principal in the copy appended to the complaint is a clerical error. Upon the demurrer, in the form adopted in this case, the direct averment of the execution of the bond in the body of the complaint must prevail, as against the omission of- the signature in the copy appended. It may be that there is a want of correspondence between the averment in the body of the complaint and the copy annexed, but if so, the most that can be said is, that the complaint is ambiguous in this, respect, and this objection was not specified as a ground of the demurrer under any head. The grounds of the demurrer relied on were all particularly specified, and this is not one of them. The objection is raised for the first time in this Court. The demurrer is not general, that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, but, that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in certain specified particulars. There was a good averment of the execution of the bond in the body of the complaint, and no objection appears to have been taken in the Court below on the ground of want of correspondence between the bond set out and the averment, and we think the complaint good, at least after verdict. Had the objection been taken in the Court below, the clerical omission of the signature of the principal in the copy, if it be one, might have been corrected.
The facts set forth, we think show, a breach of the condition of the bond and a cause of action. The moneys for which the Treasurer is in default are alleged to belong to the County of Mendocino, and the action is properly brought in the name of the county. The fact that the bond was approved by the County Judge, instead of the Board of Supervisors, is no defense to the action. The liability of the sureties does not depend upon the approval of the bond by the proper officers. (People v. Edwards, 9 Cal. 286; People v. Evans, 29 Cal. 436.) Besides, although the bond appears, to have been approved by the County Judge, there is nothing in the record to show that it was not also approved by the Board of Supervisors. Ho question of this kind appears to have been raised in the Court below.
The action is on the bond for damages resulting from a breach of its conditions. The bond contains no covenant to pay in coin. The judgment for coin, as to the sureties, is erroneous for reasons stated in the case of Fox v. Minor, ante, 111.
It may be that a judgment for coin could be recovered against the principal in a proper suit for the moneys received by him in his fiduciary capacity; but this is not an action of that kind. Morris is sued with his sureties as one of the obligors on the bond only. The bond alone is the basis on which the action rests; and, in a suit upon the bond, all the parties stand upon the «same footing, and are entitled to rest on the terms of the undertaking. The only recovery that can be had on the bond is the damages resulting from the failure of Morris to discharge his duties in the mode prescribed by law; and the damages can only be required to be paid in money generally, according to the terms of the bond. We observe that, in some cases brought before us, the officers approving official bonds have required them to be made payable in coin. This practice seems to be a safe precaution.
All that portion of the transcript after folio sixty-nine, except the notice of appeal, was improperly inserted. It constitutes no part of the record on this appeal.
The judgment of the District Court is modified by striking out all those portions directing payment to be made in coin, and costs are awarded to appellant, except as to that portion of the_ transcript improperly inserted, as indicated in this opinion.