Case Name: Margaret Mount, Administratrix of William Mount, deceased v. Joseph F. Lakeman, Clerk of Millcreek Township, Hamilton county
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1871-12
Citations: 21 Ohio St. 643
Docket Number: 
Parties: Margaret Mount, Administratrix of William Mount, deceased v. Joseph F. Lakeman, Clerk of Millcreek Township, Hamilton county.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 21
Pages: 643–645

Head Matter:
Margaret Mount, Administratrix of William Mount, deceased v. Joseph F. Lakeman, Clerk of Millcreek Township, Hamilton county.
1. An action to recover money received by a township treasurer and converted to his own use, as for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff, is barred by the limitation of six years, provided by section 14 of the civil code, and is not governed by the limitation of ten years provided in section 17 or in section 18 of the code.
2. The action not being on the official bond of the treasurer, the township clerk was not the proper party plaintiff, (S. & O. 1356, section 27,) although the trustees of the township ordered him to sue for and collect the money.
Error to the court of common pleas of Hamilton county. Reserved in the district court.
Two cases are considered together. The original actions were these: One for the recovery of money claimed to be due the defendant in error, as part of the school fund of Mill-creek Township — amount claimed $3,783.12, with interest from April 14, 1858. The other action was for the recovery of money claimed to be due the defendant in error, as part of the funds of Millcreek Township — amount claimed $3,391.96, with interest from April, 14 1858.
Both actions were brought on the 16th of August, 1867,. by “ Joseph E. Lakeman, clerk of Millcreek Township, Hamilton county, Ohio,” against Margaret Mount, administratrix of the estate of William Mount deceased. The petitions are substantially alike in the two cases, except as to the amount claimed, and except as to the character of the fund sought to be recovered. The fund in one case is called “part of the school fund for school purposes belonging to-said Mill creek Township,” and, in the other case the fund is called “moneys of said Millcreek Township.”
In both petitions “ Joseph E. Lakeman, the plaintiff above-named, states that he has been duly elected and qualified as clerk of the township of Millcreek, in the county of Hamilton and State of Ohio, and is now acting as such; that on or about the fifth day of April, a. d. 1857, William Mount was duly elected treasurer of said township, and thereafter, viz, on or about the 14th day of April, a. d. 1857, was-duly qualified as such treasurer.” The petitions further state that said William Mount, while so acting as such treasurer, between said 14th day of April, 1857, and the 14th day of April, 1858, received the money sued for, .and that it became his official duty to distribute and pay over the money according to law; that he failed to do so, but converted the same to his own use.
The petitions further state “ that said William Mount has since deceased, and that Margaret Mount, the defendant above named, has been duly appointed and qualified as the administratrix of his estate, but has not paid to said plaintiff, or to said township, or to any person or persons, for the use of said township, said sum of money, or any part thereof; that the claim sued for in this action has been duly presented to her, and has been rejected; that said plaintiff has been ordered by the trustees of said Millcreek township to sue for and collect said amount of money; and by reason of the premises there is due from said defendant to said plaintiff the sum of” money sued for, with interest from April 14, 1858; and judgment is asked accordingly.
The defendant below demurred to the petitions, on the grounds : 1st. They do not contain facts sufficient to constitute causes of action; and, 2d. It appears on the face of the petitions that the alleged causes of action are barred by the ■statute of - limitations.
The demurrers were overruled, and judgment entered for the plaintiff below; and the defendant below filed petitions in error in the district court, and therein they were reserved to this court for decision.
O'Conner & Powell for plaintiff in error.
Forrest & Lindemann for defendant in error.

Opinion:
By the Court :
The common pleas erred in overruling the demurrers to the petitions, and in entering judgment.
The actions were not on the official bond of Mount as treasurer of the township, but were for money had and received by the defendant's intestate. The limitation applicable to the causes of action stated in the petitions was that of six years, as provided in section 14 of the civil code, and not that of ten years, as provided in section 17 or section 18. The petitions showed that the six years' limitation had taken effect.
The actions not'being on the official bond of the treasurer, the township clerk was not the proper party plaintiff, (S. & C. 1356, sec. 27,) although the trustees of the township ordered him to sue for and collect the money.
Judgments reversed.