State ex rel. Lafayette County v. Hall
Mississippi Supreme Court
Fbom the circuit court of Lafayette comity. HoN. JaMes T. FaNt, Judge. The opinion states the facts. The bond was liable for the forfeitures prescribed by § 369 of the code. It is competent for a statute to make the sureties liable for penalties. Cox v. Poss, 56 Miss. 481; Dailey v. State, 56 lb. 475; Beall v. Shattuck, 53 lb. 358. State v. Baker is not an authority against appellant. That was a case of malfeasance. This one of non-feasance.
Read the full summary
Fbom the circuit court of Lafayette comity. HoN. JaMes T. FaNt, Judge. The opinion states the facts. The bond was liable for the forfeitures prescribed by § 369 of the code. It is competent for a statute to make the sureties liable for penalties. Cox v. Poss, 56 Miss. 481; Dailey v. State, 56 lb. 475; Beall v. Shattuck, 53 lb. 358. State v. Baker is not an authority against appellant. That was a case of malfeasance. This one of non-feasance. At common law the whole penalty was recoverable for any breach. 2 Black. Com. 341; Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S; 436. Equity, however, began to relieve…
1Opinion of the CourtCooper, J.
This is an action brought by the state for the use of Lafayette county, against Hall, the former treasurer of the county, and the sureties upon his official bond. The declaration contains two counts.
By the first count the plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $2800, being fourteen forfeitures of $200 each, for failures by the treasurer to comply with the provisions of section 369 of the code, which provides that “ The county treasurer, at every regular meeting of *722the board of supervisors, and at such other times as may be required by the said board, shall make to such board a detailed report…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- M'Dowell v. Burwell's AdministratorCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1826
- State v. BakerMississippi Supreme Court · 1872
- State v. NicholsMississippi Supreme Court · 1860