Case Name: Dawson v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1882-01
Citations: 38 Ohio St. 1
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dawson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 38
Pages: 1–3

Head Matter:
Dawson v. The State.
An official bond conditioned for tbe faithful discharge of the duties of an office “according to law” embraces duties required by laws in force during the term of the officer, whether enacted before or after the execution of the bond. King v. Nichols, 16 Ohio St. 80, approved.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County Reserved in the District Court.
The original action was brought by the state of Ohio against Jacob B. Koch, principal, and Archibald Dawson and others, the plaintiffs in error, sureties, on the official bond of said Koch as treasurer of Wayne county for the term commencing on the first Monday of September, 1872, and continuing for two years, and until his successor was elected and qualified.
Kocli was elected on tbe second Tuesday of October, 1869, and tbe bond sued on was executed on .December 6,1869. The condition of tbe bond was as follows: “Nowif the said Jacob B. Koch shall faithfully discharge all the duties of his said office, and shall pay over according to law all money which shall come into his hands as such county treasurer, for state, county, township or other purposes, during his said term of office, then this obligation to be void, otherwise to be and remain in full force and virtue.”
At the date of the execution of the bond, the city of "Wooster, a city of the second class, with a population of less than 50,000, was the county seat of Wayne county, in which was elected annually a city treasurer, who was ex offieio treasurer of the city school district, and whose duty it was to receive from the county treasurer all moneys belonging to the city and school district, and disburse the same according to law.
Between the date of the bond and the commencement of Koch’s term of office, to wit, on April 2, 1870, the general assembly passed an act (67 Ohio L. 32) providing, among other things, “ that in cities of first and second class, having a population of less than 50,000, embracing a county seat, no election for city treasurer shall be held, but the county treasurer shall, in such cases, act as city treasurer,” &c. Hence, it is contended by plaintiffs in error, that as sureties for Koch as treasurer of the county as aforesaid, they are not liable on their bond, for any failure on the part of their principal “ to pay over according to law ” moneys which .came into his hands for the use of said city or school district:
Lynch, Lay & Lynch, for plaintiff in error:
The subsequent legislation so changed the duties of Koch’s office, his powers and his obligations, as to release his sureties from all obligation upon his official bond. Pyrus v. Gibb, 38 Eng. L. & E. 57; S. C., 88 Eng. C. L. 903; Miller v. Stewart, 9 Wheat. 680; 9 Wheat. 720; 7 Bosw. 94; Rathbone v. Warren, 10 Johns. 587; Evans v. Bradley, 17 Wend. 422; 3 Wash. 70; State v. Corey, 16 Ohio St. 17; Myers v. Parker, 6 Ohio St. 501; State v. Medary, 17 Ohio, 554; Bethume v. Dozier, 10 Ga. 235; McKay v. Dodge, 5 Ala. 388; Ins. Co. v. Smith, 2 Hill (S. C.) 589; Brown v. Latimore, 17 Cal. 93; Kenebeck v. Turner, 2 Me. 42.
Jó/wt McSweeney, John McSweeney, Jr., and W. J. Gilmore, for defendant in error:
People v. Vilas, 36 N. Y. 459-472; Brandt on Suretyship, 608, and eases cited; United States v. Gaussen, 2 Paine, 189.

Opinion:
By the Court.
A faithful discharge of the duties of the office of county treasurer, within the condition of his official bond, required the payment over " according to law " of all moneys which came into the hands of the treasurer, during his term, belonging to the city or school district.
This duty is within the very letter of the bond, and in contemplation of law must be regarded as within its intent and meaning as understood by the parties at the time of its execution. The power of the legislature to modify the duties of the.officer during his term cannot be doubted, and the exercise of such power must have been within the contemplation of the parties at the time the bond was executed. " According to law " embraces statute law in force during the term of office, whether passed before or after the execution of the bond. King, Carey & Howe v. Nichols, 16 Ohio St. 80, approved and followed.
Judgment affirmed.