Crook County v. Bushnell
Oregon Supreme Court
Appear from Crook County. Statement of facts: Action upon an official undertaking of-Bushnell as county treasurer, made to the State of Oregon. Complaint alleges that the sum of money came into his hands as treasurer, and has not been turned over to his successor in office. The complaint did not allege that leave had been obtained to bring the action, nor that the money was the property of the county.
Read the full summary
Appear from Crook County. Statement of facts: Action upon an official undertaking of-Bushnell as county treasurer, made to the State of Oregon. Complaint alleges that the sum of money came into his hands as treasurer, and has not been turned over to his successor in office. The complaint did not allege that leave had been obtained to bring the action, nor that the money was the property of the county. The county could not bring this action without having first obtained leave of the court. (Civ. Code, § 339.) At common law, an action on an official bond could only be brought in the name of the…
1Opinion of the Court
LorDj-C. J.
This is an action brought by Crook County, as plaintiff, against Bushnell, ex-county treasurer, and his bondsmen, as defendants, to recover the sum of-, upon his official undertaking as such treasurer. The complaint alleges that the defendant Bushnell was duly elected treasurer of Crook County; that he executed a bond in the usual form to the State of Oregon; that the other defendants became sureties thereon; and that the sums of money for which the action is brought came into his hands as such treasurer, and have not been turned over to his successor in office. The complaint does…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. WoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1888
- Reiff v. Redfield School BoardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Brower Lumber Co. v. MillerOregon Supreme Court · 1898
- Hume v. KellyOregon Supreme Court · 1896
- Price v. PriceWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1936