Court Opinion

ID: 9767784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:26:53.702552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:32.994775
License: Public Domain

Paul Ward, J., dissenting. I do not agree with the conclusion reached in the majority opinion. The statute under which appellee McGuire was appointed stamp deputy states that he shall be accountable to the Commissioner for ‘ ‘ any wrongful acts. ’ ’ The bond executed by appellant says that he shall be liable to the Commissioner for any careless acts. Conceding without admitting that the wording of the bond is controlling there is still no testimony in the record upon which to hold appellant liable. A careful search of the records fails to disclose any acts of carelessness on the part of McGuire. All of the evidence on this point was furnished by McGuire himself. It appears to me that he did everything any reasonable person could have done to protect the Commissioner. When he discovered trouble was brewing in the partnership he immediately locked the doors of the place of business and. reported the fact to all parties concerned. So far as; the record shows the stamps were handled in the usual manner and in a manner known, or could easily have been known by the Commissioner. The question of construing the bond against the interest of the bonding company has no place in the opinion as there is no question about what the bond means—the only question involved is that of carelessness.