Слике страница
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

v.

mg certificate; but as no objection was made Bbe the revised Code of Mississipp. 614 ans to the introduction of the title papers in the number of breaches may be assigned and when a

demurrer shall be joined in any action, no defect court below, on behalf of the United States, on

in the pleadings shall be regarded by the court unthe hearing; and as the cause has presented no less specially alleged as the causes of demurrer. A difficulty on its merits, this preliminary point case having come to the Supreme Court, by writ

of error from the district of Mississippi, the modes has been passed over, with this indication; so

of proceeding in that State govern the pleadings. that in future, the objection may be taken be The case having been brought up from the Cir. low, should it be deemed desirable to present cuit Court of Mississippi, on a writ of error, and

the judgment of the Circuit Court, on the demur. the question on part of the government, wheth

er, in favor of the defendant, and against the Unit. er such authentication is sufficient to authorize ed States, having been reversed by the Supreme the evidences of title to be read.

Court, the case will be in the Circuit Court as it We order the decree of the Superior Court to ject to additional pleadings as an amendment of

the demurrer had been overruled ; and will be subbe reversed, and that the petition be dismissed. the present pleadings, according to the rules and

practice of the Circuit Court, and on such terms 186*] *This cause came on to be heard on the as it may impose. transcript of the record from the Superior Court for the District of East Florida, and was ar

N error to the Circuit Court of the United gued by counsel; on consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this court that the grant or sippi. concession is void for the want of identity;

Gordon D. Boyd was duly appointed a rethat it appropriates no land; that the said pe ceiver of public moneys for the district of lands titioner has acquired no right or title to any subject to sale at Columbus, in *the [*188 specific land. Whereupon, it is now here de- State of Mississippi, for the term of four years creed and ordered by this court that the decree from the 27th day of December, 1836. On the of the said Superior Court in this cause be, and 15th of June, 1837, he gave a bond in the penal the same is hereby reversed and annulled; and sum of two hundred thousand dollars, jointly that this cause be, and the same is hereby re- and severally with Samuel Rossdale and others, manded to the said Superior Court, wită di- the defendants in error in the present suit. The rections to enter a decree in conformity to the condition of the bond was that, whereas the opinion of this court.

President of the United States had, pursuant to law, appointed him, the said Boyd, receiver

as aforesaid, for the term of four years, from 187*] *THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiffs in the 27th of December, 1836, that therefore, “if Error,

the said Boyd shall faithfully execute and dis.

charge the duties of his office, then the above GORDON D. BOYD et al., Defendants in Error. obligation to be void, and of none effect, other.

wise it shall abide and remain in full force and Action on official bond— liability of surety- virtue.” practice.

At May Term, 1838, a suit was instituted on The United States proceeded on the official bond this bond by the United States in the Circuit of Boyd, a receiver of public moneys for the dis. Court for the Southern District of Mississippi trict of lands subject to sale at Columbus, Missis. against the obligors, being the present defend. sippi. Boyd had been appointed receiver for four ants in error, to recover the penalty thereof. bond was for the faithful performance of the du- The defendants craved oyer of the bond, and ties of his office, and was executed on the 15th of afterwards of the condition, and subsequently, June, 1837. States were. 1st. That after the 27th day of De pleaded that the plaintiffs ought not to main. cember, 1836, Boyd received, in his official capac- tain their action, because “the said Boyd did, ity, fifty-nine thousand six bundred and twenty from time to time, and all times after making two dollars, which he failed to pay over to the of the said bond, and the condition thereof, United States, as he was bound to do by law. That Boyd, on the 27th day of December, 1836, well and truly observe, perform, fulfil, and keep and at divers days between that and the 30th of the condition of said bond, by faithfully exehundred and twenty-two dollars, as receiver, which cuting and discharging the duties of his office, sum remained in his hands on the 30th day of according to the tenor and effect, true intent September, 1837; and that he failed to pay the and meaning of the said condition." same, pursuant to his instructions from the Secretary of the Treasury, and the duties of bis office, Aled their amended replication, in which they

At November Term, 1839, the United States The case of Farrar and Brown y. The United said that they ought not to be barred from

It matters not at 'what time the moneys bad maintaining their action, because the said Boyd been received by the oflicer, if received after his had not performed the condition of the said appointment. They were held in trust for the bond, and two breaches thereof were assigned. United States, and so continued to be held at and after the date of the bond ; and the su reties are

Ist. That “the said Boyd, after the 27th of llable to the United States.

December, 1836, and while he was receiver, and The liability of a surety 18 not to extend, by im as such receiver, received of the public moneys, plication, beyond the terms of bis contract. undertaking 18 to receive a strict interpretation, large sums, viz., fifty-nine thousand six hun and not to extend beyond the fair scope of its dred and twenty-two dollars and sixty cents,

which said sum he then and there wholly NOTE: A8 to suretles on official and other bonds failed, neglected, and refused to pay over to and liabilities of, see potes to 3 L. er. ". s. 709; the said plaintiffs, pursuant to his instruction 6 L. ed. U. s. 578; 12 L. ed. U. S. 66 ; 42 L. ed from the Secretary of the Treasury, as he was U. S. 987. As to liability on official bond, see note to 51

bound to do by law, and the duty of his said L.R.A. 222.

office of receiver." As to liability of suretles on bond of a peace 2d. That “the said Boyd, after the 27th of officer for death of person due to the act or de December, 1836, and on divers days and times, fault of the principal or one of bis suretles, see note to 11 L.R.A.(N.S.) 758.

between that day and the 30th of Sep. 1*189

etc.

terms.

[ocr errors]

tember, 1837, while he was receiver, and as chase money within thirty days to the Treas. such receiver, received divers sums of the pub- urer of the United States directly, or “to a perlic moneys, amounting in the whole to fifty- son appointed by the President to attend at the oine thousand six hundred and twenty-two dol. place of sale and receive it;" the residue was lars and sixty cents, and that the said sum re- to be paid directly to the treasurer. On the mained in the hands of the said Boyd, as re- 10th of May, 1800 (1 Story's Laws, 783), land ceiver, on the 30th of September, 1837; and the offices were created at four places, Cincinnati, said Boyd then and there wholly failed, neg. Chilicothe, Marietta, and Steubenville; and it lected, and refused to pay the same over to the was directed that a receiver of public moneys United States, pursuant to his instructions should be appointed at each of them, by the from the Secretary of the Treasury, as he was President, whose duties were to receive the pur. bound to do by law, and the duty of his of. chase money from purchasers; give receipts fice.

therefor; transmit, at designated periods, acTo this replication the defendants demurred, counts of the moneys received, to the Secrefor the following causes:

tary of the Treasury; and "within three Ist. The first breach does not state the time months transmit to the Treasurer of the United at which Boyd, as receiver, received the said States the moneys by them received." By the money after this appointment, whether before same law, the Secretary of the Treasury was or after the date of the bond.

authorized to prescribe such further regula. 2d. The first breach does not state that tions as to the manner of keeping the books, Boyd neglected to pay over any moneys re. and the accounts, as he might think proper. On ceived by him, as received, after the date of the the 25th of April, 1812 (2 Story's Laws, 1238), bond.

the general land office was established, and all 3d. The second breach does not state any the powers and duties of the Secretary of the time at which Boyd, as receiver, received the Treasury, relative to the public lands, were said money.

devolved upon the commissioner; to whom, also, 4th. The second breach does not state that all returns from the land offices were directed Boyd, as receiver, neglected to pay over any to be made, and by whom all accounts from moneys received by him, as receiver, after the them were to be settled. On the 24th of April, date of the bond.

1820 (3 Story's Laws, 1774), the law was 5th. That the replication is otherwise insuf- passed requiring the whole purchase money to ficient.

be paid on the day of sale to the receiver, or The United States joined in the demurrer, to the Treasurer of the United States. On the and the same was sustained by the court, and 3d *of March, 1833 (4 Story's Laws, (*191 judgment thereupon entered for the defend. 2359), a law was passed which formed a cer. ants. The United States prosecuted this writtain portion of the lands in the State of Misof error.

sissippi, purchased not long before from the The case was argued by Mr. Gilpin Attorney. Choctaws, into a land district called the General, for the United States. Mr. Davis, in Northeastern District; and the President was behalf of Mr. Cocke, submitted a printed argu- directed to establish a land office at some conment for the defendants.

venient place therein, which he might desig. For the United States, Mr. Gilpin contended nate; and to appoint a receiver of public mon. that the breaches of the condition of the bond, eys for that office, who was to give bond ac. by the principal obligor, are well and sufficient cording to law, and who was to perform simi. ly set forth in the replication, and that the lar duties, and be in all respects governed by demurrer ought not to have been sustained. the laws of the United States, providing for

Mr. Gilpin, Attorney-General, for the United the sale of the public lands. This office was States.

established at Columbus, and went into opera. On the 27th of December, 1836, the defend. tion on the 1st of May, 1833. On the 4th of ant Boyd was appointed a receiver of public July, 1836 (4 Story's Laws, 499), the general moneys at Columbus, in Mississippi, for four land office was re-organized; and it was provid. years.

On the 15th of June, 1837, and while ed that the receivers should make to the Secre190*] his *term of office was unexpired, the tary of the Treasury monthly returns of the bond on which the present suit was brought moneys received by them, and should pay over was given by him and the other defendants in such money, pursuant to his instructions. error, in the penal sum of two hundred thou- The various instructions that had been from sand dollars, with the condition that he “should time to time issued in regard to the various faithfully discharge the duties of his office," of duties of the officers of the land office, were receiver of public moneys, and stating the term condensed, the year 1831, into a circular to be "four years from the 27th of December, issued by the Secretary of the Treasury; which, 1836."

so far as it relates to the payment of public On the first establishment of the government moneys collected by the receivers, is as follows in 1789, the general duty of "superintending (2 Birchard's Land Documents, 443): "When the collection of the revenue,” and of "execut-| the public money in the hands of a receiver, at ing such services relating to the sale of the the end of any month, exceeds the sum of ten public lands as might be required by law" (1 thousand dollars, it should be deposited withStory's Laws, 40), was devolved on the Secre. out delay. But it must not be retained, under tary of the Treasury. The earliest general any circumstances, in contravention of the proprovision (1 Story's Laws, 42), regulating, es- visions of the Act of 10th May, 1800, which repecially, the payment of moneys on the pur- quire that the moneys received by the receivers chase of public lands, was that of the 18th of shall be transmitted within three months to May, 1796, and by that it was provided that the Treasurer of the United States, as they will the purchaser was to pay one half of the pur-I thereby render themselves and their sureties liable under their official bonds. It is essential money received; all is to be paid over; if it that the public moneys in the possession of the was so received, as to have made it a breach of receivers should be deposited at the above in- duty not to pay it over before the 15th of tervals." These instructions, which were issued June, this does not make it less so, to continue by the Secretary of the Treasury, through the to withhold it after that time. It is too plain Commissioner of the General Land Office, have for argument, that Boyd did not faithfully performed, ever since, the well known guide of re- form his duty, if he neglected to pay over these ceivers of public moneys throughout the United moneys, after the 15th of June, whenever they States.

first came there. It will thus be seen that, for a receiver of If, then, this was a duty of the principal; if public moneys “faithfully to execute and dis- a neglect of it was a breach of the condition of charge the duties of his office,” he must pay the bond on his part; is there anything which over “the public money in his hands, exceed exempts the sureties from liability on account 192*] ing ten thousand *dollars, once a of it? What are the sureties bound for? They month," and deposit "all the public moneys in are bound to answer for their principal per his possession” once in three months. It is not forming every duty whatever, which belonged possible that the duties required for the faith to his office, at the time they executed the ful execution and discharge of an office can be bond. This was his chief and well-known duty. more exactly defined.

They knew he had been in office for five On the 20th of September, 1837, the defend months; they knew he must have received pub. ant Boyd resigned his office, having at that lic moneys; they knew that the bond they gave time in his hands, not paid over, or deposited, was dated in the middle of a quarter; they as required by the above regulation, the sum knew therefore that the public moneys, thus of fifty-nine thousand six hundred and twenty- received, must be remaining in his hands undetwo dollars and sixty cents, received during the posited. It was, therefore, a duty which when term designated in the bond. This balance, they signed the bond, they knew he had to perthough repeatedly called upon, he has ever since form. They could ascertain the amount of refused to pay over, or deposit; and at May their liability at that time. They were not in Term, 1838, a suit was instituted against him any way taken by surprise. They executed the and his sureties, on their official bond, to re- bond with a full knowledge that their principal cover it. The defendants pleaded performance, was bound to pay over and deposit the moneys and alleged that Boyd had at all times, after then in his hands. It is true that a surety may jhe making of the bond, faithfully executed not be bound always to see new duties per and discharged the duties of his office. The formed, which are imposed on their principal United States, in an amended replication filed after the date of the bond; but these are not at November term, 1839, replied that he had of that character. Let us suppose that this not performed the condition of his bond, and bond, executed on the 15th of June, had con. assigned as breaches of it:

tained, in terms, this condition: "that the said 1. That while he was receiver, that is, during Boyd shall faithfully perform his duty as a the term stated in the bond, and up to the 30th receiver, by paying over and depositing all pubSeptember, 1837, he had received this amount lic money now in his hands;" will it be conof public money, and had then and there re- tended that the sureties would not then have fused to pay it over to the United States. been answerable? And is not this the case

2. That between the time of his appointment where such a condition is contained in suband the 30th of September, he had received this stance, when there is a condition that he shall amount of public money, and that it remained perform every duty, and this is a well-known in his hands on the 30th of September, and and prescribed *duty. The designation (*194 that he had then and there refused to pay it of a general duty, necessarily embraces the over to the United States.

particular duty. It seems clear then that to To this replication the defendants have de pay over the moneys remaining in his hands murred, substantially, but on a single ground. when the bond was signed, was a duty of the It is, that it does not appear that the public principal, and one which the sureties knew he money, which he has not paid over, was re- was bound to perform. They are therefore an. ceived by him after the date of the bond; and swerable for a breach of it. it is alleged, that if the money in question was But it may be said that the duty was one collected by him before that period, the sureties which should have been performed before the are not answerable for it, even though it was bond was executed; that the money received collected during the term for which the bond before the 15th of June should have been paid prescribed his official duties, and though it was over before that day. To that it may be an"in his hands, and remained “in his posses. swered, in the first place, that such is not sion" up to the 30th of September, when he re necessarily the fact. It does not by any means tired from office.

follow that there was a default, in not paying It will scarcely be denied that, so far as the over, even though the money had been received receiver himself was concerned, it was his duty before the date of the bond. If the sum in to pay over and deposit this money, at what question was received in the last preceding ever time it was received, as completely after month, there was nothing in the law which he193*] the 15th of June as it was before. It quired'it to be paid over before the date of the is his duty, from the nature of his office, which bond, and the demurrer admits the fact to be requires him to pay over and deposit all moneys, so, by objecting only to the want of certainty whenever received, during his term. It is his as to the receipt of the money at the day of duty, from the express words of the law, and the date of the bond. We have a right, under the regulations of the Treasury Department; this demurrer, to assume that this money was they make no distinction in regard to the all received within thirty days preceding the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

date of the bond; we can have no knowledge part of the obligees. To say nothing of the that such was not actually the fact; if it was well recognized principle that the rights of the so, the duty of the receiver was to pay it over public cannot be impaired by the neglect of its after the date of the bond, though it was re- officers to require the proper settlements, or to ceived before. Or, suppose that a receiver institute suits against the principal. The Unit. should collect nine thousand dollars before the ed States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheaton, 720; The date of the bond, and one thousand dollars United States v. Vanzant, 11 Whea- (*196 after; the law requires him to deposit only ton, 184; The United States v. Nicholl

, 12 when he has ten thousand dollars; is not the Wheaton, 509. Yet, as the case presents it. surety liable if, when the period of deposit ar. self by this demurrer, it is quite evident that rives, after the date of the bond, he fails to there was no neglect whatever: that, at the make it !

time the bond was signed, the money may have But, in the second place, if we admit that been received, and yet the period to account for the money was received before the date of the it or to deposit it has not arrived. It is, indeed, bond, and that it ought to have been then paid probable that the state of his account could over, does that make it less a duty to pay it not have been known. He was appointed in over afterwards! The real and great default Washington on the 27th of December; he could is in the permanent refusal to pay; a neglect scarcely have commenced his official duties in to account, a failure to make report, a refusal Mississippi before the middle of January; his to deposit the money at a prescribed day, may first quarterly account was to be made up to the each be great improprieties and violations of 1st of April, and necessarily requires some time official duty, but it the final neglect to pay after that date for its transmission with the over the money which constitutes the great vouchers; the bond, sent from Washington to breach; and this does not become less a breach Mississippi, was executed there in June. It because there have been other and previous may well be doubted, therefore, even if these neglects.

moneys were received before the 1st of April, But, in the third place, if we admit that the whether this default could have been known 195*j money was received before the date of before the bond was sent for execution. But the bond, and ought to have been paid over it is far more probable that these moneys were before the date, the terms of the bond expressly received after the first of April; if so, there provide for a default in this payment. Wheth had been no account rendered of the receipts; er the proper deposit had been made was un- none had been required by law; the sureties known to the public officers when the bond knew there could have been none; of course no was taken; they therefore required that it neglect, to their prejudice, is chargeable against should embrace the duties of Boyd during his the United States or their officers. whole term--that is, from the 23d of December If these views are correct, the following pofor four years. Such are the words of the sition is established: That where a receiver is bond; such are its voluntary obligations on bound by his bond to deposit moneys in his the part of the sureties. There is nothing, as hands, received during a specified official term, I have said, in the assignment of these breaches it is a breach of that bond if he neglects to dewhich conflicts with the fact that the money posit what was received during the time prewas collected within a period that did not re- scribed, but previous to its date; and this is quire its payment to be made to the United especially the case if the bond is dated after States before the date of the bond; but if there the receipt of the money but before the time of were—if it is admitted that the money was all deposit prescribed by law or regulation, or if received on the first of January, 1837, is not the money received actually remains in his that within the term of four years from the hands at that date. 23d of December, 1836; during all of which, The judicial decisions of the courts of comprevious to the date of the bond as well as mon law, as well as of this court, seem to essubsequent, these sureties stipulate the receiv: tablish the same position. There is nothing in er's duties shall be faithfully performed ? the condition of this bond that the obligor canThat a bond, voluntarily entered into, to guar- not perform; and it is a well settled principle antee the performance of all duties from a that if a condition can be performed, without day expressly stipulated in the bond, though breach of the law, it is good: Mitchell v. Rayanterior to its date, to another day, also atipu- nolds, 10 Modern, 134. In the case of Arlinglated—if the principal so long remains in office ton v. Meinch, 2 Saunders, 414, it was held -is a legal and binding instrument, cannot be that the recital was the part of the bond which denied. And such was the case here, and such governed its construction, and that the condi. is the condition that is broken; if we take the tion must be construed by it. In the case of facts of the case to be more favorable to the Newman v. *Newman, 4 Maule & Sel. (*197 sureties than necessarily results from the as. 66, it was held that if there were some things signment of breaches to which they demur.

required in the condition which were void, this If, then, it be alleged that this payment did not release the obligors from the perform. ought to have been made before the date of the ance of the other conditions. The principle is bond, we say: 1st. That such is not necessarily well established that the sureties are bound by the fact. The money may have been received terms of the agreement, as recited in the bond, within a month of that date. 2d. That if it unless some parts are illegal, and then their ought, it is not less an obligation on the sure responsibility remains for the residue. It is ties to see it subsequently paid. 3d. That the their agreement that controls, and this is a sureties, by the terms af the bond, stipulated matter for the court and jury to judge of. In to meet such a contingency.

the case of Hassell v. Long, 2 Maule & Sel. Nar can the sureties relieve themselves by 383, the obligor was a church warden, holding the allegation that there was a neglect on the from year to year, commencing in the month of

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

April; on the Bth December, 1796, he gave his liable further than the true intention and official bond for the faithful performance of his meaning of the parties expressed in the instruduties then imposed, or that might thereafter ment, and the legal construction of the words be imposed; the plaintiffs sought to charge him used, make him liable; but so far he is liable, for duties after April, 1797, to which the surety and the legal construction of the words make objected, and was sustained by the court. It him answerable. All who bind themselves in was admitted that he was bound for the whole a bond, are equally obligors; and there are year, or term during which the bond was given; many cases in the construction of bonds, where the only question was, whether a fair construc- the letter of the condition has been departed tion of the words of the bond extended his lia from, to carry into effect the intention of the bility further. In the case of Nares v. Roules, parties. And it is a rule in the construction of 14 East, 510, a collector was appointed under all deeds that they are to be construed most an Act of Parliament to perform certain duties, strictly against those who make them, and wbich were to be designated by another act “to most favorably for those for whose benefit be” subsequently passed, the title of which was they are made, as every contract is. In the given; it so happened that the act thus referred case of The Dedham Bank v. Chickering, 3 to was actually passed before the date of the Pickering, 341, the same principle is sustained bond, or the law which required it, and the col. It was held there that where the terms of the lector acted under it, and became a defaulter; bond were general, 80 as to embrace the it was held that his sureties were liable, it whole *period of a person being in of- (*199 being evident, from the whole tenor of the fice, they could not be restrained to a single bond, that it referred to the act previously year, although it had been customary to repassed, notwithstanding the prospective words. elect him from time to time. Turning to the In the course of argument, it was said, as a decisions of this court, we find in the case of thing not doubted, that the commissioners of Sthreshley v. The United States, 4 Cranch, 169, revenue "might well take such a security that the Chief Justice laying down the duties of a the duties that were actually collected should collector of revenue, for which his sureties are not be lost.” In the case of Curling v. Chalklen, answerable, to be, first, a liability to pay over 3 Maule & Sel. 508, a collector of poor rates what he has collected; and, second, to answer gave bond, "that he should render to the for any neglect in collecting it. While the church-wardens at, etc., and as often thereafter court in that case refused to make the sureties as required, a true account of the moneys so answerable for outstanding duties at the time collected, etc., and of all moneys rated and not his office ceased, they held them to be an. received; and pay over the moneys so by him swerable for the payment of all that had been collected and received and remaining in his collected before th time. The case of The hands.” The collector was appointed in 1806; United States v. Giles, 9 Cranch, 212, was that the bond was dated 21st July, 1810; and the ap- of a marshal, who gave bond, dated the 9th of pointment expired in 1814. Lord Ellenborough January, 1801, well and faithfully to perform said: "I think it is clear, from the act of the duties of his office, but without any limi198*] Parliament, *and the condition of this tation whatever, as to the period when the bond, that it was intended to be given as a obligation of the sureties was to begin. It security for the faithful accounting of the prin: appeared that previous to the date of his bond, cipal for the time prior to that when the bond the marshal bad collected a sum of public was executed, and also for the whole period of money, which he had not paid over, as directed time after the execution of the bond, during by the treasury regulations to do; but it did which he should continue in the office of col- not appear that any demand was made upon lector." In the case of Peppin v. Cooper, 2 him, by the United States, to pay it over. B. & A. 431, the collector of rates was ap: The sureties contended that, as the money had pointed 22d August, 1812; he gave bond, dated been collected before the date of their bond, i8th December, 1812, that he should from time which, by its terms, had no relation to any duto time and at all times thereafter, faithfully ties previous to its date, it was not a breach of collect, etc., Abbot, Ch. J., said: "I am of opin- duty for which they were answerable. Two of ion that the condition of the bond is satisfied the judges agreed with this view of the case; by the faithful collection of the rates for one two others differed with them, and held that year. The office of collector must be annual. the sureties were liable, because the money, I think, therefore, it was the intention of the though received before the date of the bond, was parties that this bond should only be co-exten- then in the marshal's hands, and not paid over ; sive with the duties to be performed.”

and the other two appear to have concurred In the case of Dawes v. Edes, 3 Mass. 177, on this point, though they considered the an administrator gave bond to render, etc., of want of evidence of any demand having been the goods, etc., which have or shall come to made of the marshal, as sufficient to relieve his hands. It was objected by the surety that him from the charge of having converted it. these words did not imply a retrospective This case wants the essential feature of the meaning, but the court said that the bond present one; an express stipulation in the bond, clearly covered what came into the administra of the time when the receiver's liability is to tor's hands before as well as after its date. In begin; yet even there, the payment of the Roth v. Miller, 15 Ser. & Raw. 107, Judge Dun- money, independent of the time of receipt, is can said: “Although it may be admitted that regarded as a substantial duty, which, if vio. bonds are not to be construed strictly against | lated, involves a breach of the condition. In Bureties, yet securities are as much bound, ac- the case of Walton v. The United States, 9 cording to the true meaning of the obligation, Wheat. 651, the court, in speaking of the official as principals.” In 4 Yates, 340, and 4 Dallas, bond of a receiver, say that it is not an in79, Judge Smith has laid down the true princi- strument given for a particular balance of ple of construction to be, that the surety is not money; but that it is a *security mere- |* 200

« ПретходнаНастави »