Legal Opinion

District of Columbia v. Petty

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided March 17, 1913No. 316PublishedCited by 9 opinions

ERROR TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA. The facts, which involve the liability of sureties' on an official bond and the responsibility of a public officer for moneys other than public, are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Pitney

This action was founded upon the official bond of James T. Petty, Auditor of the District of Columbia, given by him and his sureties, bearing date May 1,1888, and conditioned as follows:

“Whereas, the above bounden James T. Petty has been appointed to the office of Auditor in and for the District of Columbia; Now, therefore, the condition of said obligation is such that if the said James T. Petty shall faithfully and efficiently perform all the duties of his said office, as provided for by law, and the rules and regulations from time to time duly prescribed for the government of the civil…

2Cited by9 opinions

Broughton v. BrewerDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 1969
McAfee v. Ogden Union Ry. & Depot Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1923
Power County v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1927
Franks v. ThompsonDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama · 1973
Howard v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1937

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.