Board of Supervisors v. Alford
Board of Supervisors v. Alford
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Had the bill been so drawn as to show that the facts are unknown as to which set of sureties are liable, the jurisdiction of ■chancery would have been undoubted.
Gay v. Edwards, 30 Miss. 218 ; Tate v. De Soto, 51 Miss. 588.
But the criticism is a just one, that the only uncertainty alleged is as to the law upon the facts stated, and, if this was a recognized ground for the interposition of a court of equity, there would scarcely be a need for courts of law.
On the facts stated our present view is, that there is no liability on the first bond, not because Alford was represented by another in conducting the business of his office; but because he was not a defaulter during his first term. Grant that Latham, who acted for him, misapplied the money, Alford made it all-right with the count}', and reported the sum due, and produced the money to be counted, as required by law, and this was during his second term of office, wherefore it seems that any default by him was after the second bond was given, and not while the first was a security for his official acts.
The demurrer of the sureties on the first bond was properly sustained, and then the bill was no more than an action on the second bond presenting no ground for proceeding in chancery against them, and for that reason.the demurrer of the sureties on the second bond was properly sustained.
■ But, as Alford is liable for all the money due the county, and as the note for $6441.91, executed by Latham with Ragsdale as surety was made to represent, and secure the payment of the debt, equity will lay hold of the security and place the burden, at once, where it should be borne, substituting the creditor to the rights of Alford, and enforcing the claim he could enforce for this debt. Sheldon on Subrogation, § 1'61.
The consideration of the note was not illegal, and the note is not void on such ground.
McWilliams v. Phillips, 51 Miss. 196, was decided improperly, and we decline to follow it. In it there was a misapprehension and misapplication not only of Newsom v. Thigpen, but of well-settled principles. But, besides this, here the note was given to evidence and secure an unquestionable liability'' of' Latham to Alford, after it had been incurred, and there is that-difference between this case and those cited. There is no semblance of illegality in the consideration of the note. The demurrer of Alford and the representatives of Ragsdale and Latham was improperly sustained, and as to this the decree is reversed, that demurrer overruled, and answers required in thirty days after mandate filed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Board of Supervisors of Lauderdale County v. W. F. Alford
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Chancery Jurisdiction. Doubt as to which of two parties is liable. When the facts as to which of two parties is liable on a cause of action staled are unknown, chancery has jurisdiction to compel an interpleader and to grant the complainant relief. But where the only uncertainty is as to the law determining such liability on the facts stated, chancery has no jurisdiction. 2. Same. Question as to which of two sets of surt ties on bonds are liable. Case in judgment. A. was elected and served for two successive terms as treasurer of the county of L., and executed a bond for each term. He appointed an agent to-conduct the office for the first term. . For this there was no authority of law. The agent defaulted, but executed his note with a surety in favor of A. to cover the deficit. A. appeared before the board of supervisors at their first and second meetings during his second term, counted the money in his- hands to them, as required by law, and it was found to be' the-correct amount. At his third report, A. failed to have the correct amount by exactly the amount of the deficit of his agent during the first term, and he then admitted the default, and that he had obtained money temporarily, to be counted at the previous meetings, so as to cover up the default. Each set of sureties denied liability. The board filed a bill in chancery against A. and the sureties on both bonds, and asked that the two sets of sureties be compelled to interplead, so that the liability could be properly fixed. Both sets of sureties demurred. Held, that the chancery court had no jurisdiction. Semble. The sureties on the first bond were not liable, because the default occurred during the second, term. If so, the remedy at law on the second bond is adequate. 3. Same. Promissory note. Consideration. Subrogation. In the case above stated the consideration for the note executed in favor of' A. by the agent, to secure the amount of his default, was not illegal, and the note was binding in favor of A. personally, though not officially; and the complainant, representing the county of L., is entitled in equity to be subrogated to the full rights of A. against the makers of the note, they being parties defendant to the suit. McWilliams v. Phillips, 51 Miss. 196,. criticised.