Town of Ulysses v. Ingersoll — 81 A.D. 304

Majority

p. 304

Town of Ulysses and Eugene Terry, as Supervisor of the Town of Ulysses, Appellants, v. Monmouth H. Ingersoll, as Executor, etc., of Charles Ingersoll, Deceased, Defendant, Impleaded with John H. Collins and Others, Respondents.

Headnote

Vounty treasurer’s bond “unto the county of” —it cannot be enforced by a town and the supervisor thereof to collect school money misappropriated by the county treas-r urer—failure of the defendant to demur to a complaint thereon.

The county treasurer of Tompkins county gave a bond “ unto the County of Tompkins, in the penal sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) to be paid to the County of Tompkins, its successors and'assigns,’’ conditioned that, if he shall “faithfully execute the duties of his office and shall pay over according to law and account for all moneys, property and securities which shall come into his Hands as Treasurer and render a just and true account thereof to the Board of Supervisors when thereunto required and obey all orders and directions of a competent court relating thereto, then this obligation shall be void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue.”

He thereafter converted to his own use a portion of' the school money, received • by him from the State Treasurer, which had been apportioned to a town in the county.

Held, that such town and the supervisor thereof could not, there being no statute authorizing them to do so, maintain an action upon the bond to recover the money so converted, as, in the absence of statutory authority, an action upon a sealed instrument can only be maintained by those who are named as parties therein;'

p. 305

That the failure of the defendants in the action to demur to the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs did not have legal capacity to sue did not constitute a waiver of any objection to the plaintiffs’ right to maintain the action, as such objection related to the substance of the cause of action itself and not simply to the legal capacity of the plaintiffs to sue.

Appeal by the plaintiffs, the Town of Ulysses and another, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, John H. Collins and others, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Tompkins on the 26th day of September, 1902, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at the Tompkins Special Term, dismissing the complaint upon the merits.

Since the commencement of the action Charles Ingersoll, one of the original parties defendant, has died, and in his place has been substituted his executor, Monmouth H. Ingersoll. Eugene Terry, as supervisor of the town of Ulysses, has also been substituted since the commencement of the action in the place of Webb H. Pinckney, as supervisor of the town of Ulysses, one of the original plaintiffs.

Charles Ingersoll was elected county treasurer of the county of Tompkins in the fall of 1896. Before entering upon the duties of his office as such county treasurer he gave an undertaking with sureties to the county of Tompkins in the form provided by statute (Laws of 1892, chap. 686, § 140, as amd. by Laws of 1893, chap. 222), which undertaking was approved by a resolution of the board of supervisors of the county of Tompkins and filed as also provided by.said statute. By said undertaking it is provided that said county treasurer and his sureties “ are held and firmly bound unto the County of Tompkins, in the penal sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) to be paid to the County of Tompkins, its successors and assigns.” The condition of the undertaking is as follows : “ Whereas, the above bounden Charles Ingersoll, has been duly elected Treasurer of Tompkins County for the term of three years from the first day' of January, 1897, now, therefore, if the said Charles Ingersoll shall faithfully execute the duties of his office and shall pay over according to law .and account for all moneys, property and securities which shall come into his hands as Treasurer and render a just and true account thereof to the Board of Super

p. 306

visors when thereunto required, and obey all orders and directions of a competent court relating thereto, then this obligation shall be void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue.”

Ingersoll entered' upon the. duties ¡of said office January 1, 18.97, and continued the county treasurer of said county until January 1, 1900. On or about April 1, 1899, said Ingersoll as such county treasurer received from the State Treasurer of the State of New York the sum of $27,715.66, the moneys apportioned by the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the support of the common schools in the county of Tompkins for the year 1899. The school commissioners of said county of Tompkins apportioned the said $27,715.66 among the several school districts and parts of school districts in said county, stating the towns in which said school districts and parts of school districts were situated. The amount so apportioned to the school districts and parts of school district in the town of Ulysses was $2,608.03. - The supervisor of the town of Ulysses gave to said treasurer in behalf of ¡said town his bond with sureties in the form provided by statute (Laws of 1894, chap. 556, tit. 2, § 17) for the faithful disbursement, ¡safekeeping and accounting for such moneys and of all other school moneys which should come into his hands from any other source, which bond was duly approved by said county treasurer. Thereafter said Ingersoll as such county treasurer paid to the supervisor of the town of Ulysses from time to time on account of said school moneys so apportioned to said town of Ulysses the sum of $2,135.25, leaving unpaid a balance of $476.78. ' Said Ingersoll wrongfully and unlawfully converted the said $476.78 to his own use. The said supervisor- of the town off Ulysses duly demanded said balance of $476.78 from said County treasurer, but said county treasurer neglected and refused to pay the same, and said balance of $476.78 has never been paid to the supervisor of the town of Ulysses. This action is brought by the town of Ulysses and the supervisor of said town of Ulysses against said Charles Ingersoll and his sureties on his said undertaking to recover said balance of school moneys so remaining unpaid. Issue was joined between said plaintiffs and the defendants who were sureties on said undertaking. The trial court held that the county of Tompkins was¡ the only obligee named in said undertaking apd that the complaint did not state, and the

p. 307

plaintiffs had not shown a cause of action on said undertaking in their favor and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint

David M. Dean and Randolph Horton, for the appellants.

E. A. Denton, for the respondents.

This action is wholly based upon the contract as stated in' the undertaking given by the defendants to the county of Tompkins. The Court of Appeals, in speaking of an instrument under seal, and the right to maintain an action thereon, has said: “ But where an instrument is under seal no person can sue or be sued to enforce the covenants therein contained, except those who are named as parties to the instrument and who signed and sealed the same.” (Henricus v. Englert, 137 N. Y. 488 .)

The undertaking now under consideration seems to be included among the instruments so mentioned by our court of last resort, and the plaintiffs not having been named as parties thereto cannot, therefore, maintain this action, unless their right so to maintain the same is given by some statutory authority controlling upon the parties signing the instrument.

The provisions of section 1888 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to the alleged claim of the plaintiffs in this action. Said section provides as follows: “ Where a public officer is required to give an official bond to the People, and special provision is not made by law for the prosecution of the bond by or for the benefit of a person who has sustained, by his default, delinquency or misconduct, an injury for which the sureties* upon the bond are liable, such a person may apply for leave to prosecute the delinquent’s official bond.”

The undertaking signed by the defendants was not given to “ the People,” and is not included within the letter of said section. Section 1887 provides in what cases leave of the court maybe obtained by persons other than the obligee on a county treasurer’s bond to bring an action thereon. The plaintiffs are not included within the provisions of that section. The supervisors of the several towns are by statute (Laws of 1894, chap. 556, tit. 3, § 4, as amd. by Laws of 1896, chap. 177) made the temporary custodians of the school

p. 308

money and the intermediaries for its payment for the benefit of the several school districts. Yo statutory authority has been called to our attention for towns or the supervisors of towns to bring an action On the county treasurer’s bond, where default has been made in the payment of school money. Ample remedy is afforded to such school districts and the supervisors of towns in which they are situated, without such an action. It is suggested by the appellants that the defendants should have demurred to the plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs did mot have legal capacity to sue, and that having failed to so demur to the plaintiffs’ complaint, they have waived any objection to the plaintiffs maintaining this action. The defendants’ objection to the plaintiffs maintaining this action is one relating to the substance of the cause of action itself, and not simply to the legal capacity of the plaintiffs to sue. The complaint did not state, and the proof does not show, facts sufficient to constitute a'cause of action in behalf of the plaintiffs against the defendants and the complaint was, therefore, properly dismissed. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

' Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Cases cited

Henricus v. Englert 137 N. Y. 488 N.Y. 1893-03-21 p. 307