Am. Sur. Co. of New York v. Hidalgo Cty.

FLY, C. J. This suit was instituted by Hidalgo county, for the use and benefit of Hidalgo county drainage district No. 1, and by said drainage district in its own right, against George F. Linesetter, as county treasurer of Hidalgo county, and American Surety Company. The basis of the suit was the defalcation in regard to and appropriation of the funds placed in his hands as treasurer of Hidalgo county belonging to the Hi-dalgo county drainage district, the surety company being surety on the bond of said Linesetter as treasurer of said county. The suit was instituted in Hidalgo county, but the venue was changed to Willacy county, where it was tried by a jury, and the court gave a peremptory instruction to find for ap-pellees in the sum of $67,785.76. There is really but one pivotal issue in this case, and yet this court is confronted with a transcript of 397 pages, a statement of facts of 248 pages, and voluminous briefs presenting 107 assignments of error, through 27 propositions of law. , The material facts are that Linesetter as treasurer of Hidalgo county received and failed to account for funds of the drainage district amounting to the sum of $67,785.76, for which judgment was rendered. He gave no bond a? treasurer of the drainage district, his only bonds being those executed as treasurer of Hidalgo county, upon which the American Surety Company was the surety. The bond sued upon was payable to the county judge, and was for $75,009, and was conditioned as follows: “Now, therefore, if the said George F. Line-setter shall faithfully perform and discharge all the duties required of him by law as such county treasurer aforesaid and shall pay according to law all money that shall come into his hands as county treasurer and render a just and true account thereof to the commissioners’ court at each regular term as required by law, then this obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect.” In article 1500, Rev. Stats., the bond is prescribed which was given by Linesetter. That bond was made payable as required in that law to the county judge of Hidalgo county, and was approved by the commissioners’ court. He was liable under the terms of that bond for all moneys that came into his hands as county treasurer, and was not bound as such county treasurer for any funds that he might collect in some other capacity. Among the enumerated duties of the county treasurer was “to receivp all moneys belonging to the county from whatever source they may be derived and to pay * * * the same as required by law.” Article 1505, Rev. Stats. The articles in question were enacted in 1846. It is not provided in the statute as to the treasurer’s bond that he is held liable for the moneys of any drainage, navigation, or other kind of district. On the other hand provision is made for another bond when the funds of districts are received by the county treasurer. Title 96 of Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. Stat. 1914, relates to navigation districts, and in article 5987 of the title it is provided that the county treasurer shall keep an accurate account with t-he district, and in article 5988 it is provided that the county treasurer shall execute a good and sufficient bond, payable to the navigation and canal commissioners, in double the amount of the bond issued by the district, and that bond is approved by the district commissioners. Again, in the case of drainage districts, there are similar provisions. In article 2607 it is made the duty of the county treasurer to open and keep an accurate account of all moneys of the drainage districts, and in article 2608 it Is provided that, the treasurer of the county shall be the treasurer of the district, and shall execute a good and sufficient bond payable to the drainage commissioners of such district in a sum equal to the amount of bond issued, conditioned for the faithful performance of his duty as treasurer of such district, which bond shall be approved by said drainage commissioners. If it had been contemplated by the lawmakers that the bond of the county treasurer would cover the funds of drainage districts, no provision would have been made [269] for separate bonds, but tbe law would bave' either been -silent as to a separate 'bond or would bave provided that -the treasurer’s bond given to tbe county would be sufficient to cover all funds belonging to all districts. In tbe light of the laws providing for special bonds for districts, it is apparent that it was never contemplated by tbe legislative mind that a bond given to protect county funds would cover tbe funds belonging to certain' independent districts. Not only is it apparent that the Legislature passed laws as to special bonds for drainage districts, because it was not conceived that tbe "regular bond of tbe treasurer to tbe county would protect tbe funds of tbe district, but tbe very terms of tbe statute de-' scribing tbe bond of tbe county treasurer as well as tbe words of tbe bond given in compliance with tbe statute which binds him to perform tbe duties of bis office and pay over according to law tbe moneys collected as -county treasurer, binds him and bis sureties only as to county funds. This clearly appears by tbe law defining his duties: “It shall be tbe duty of the county treasurer to receive all moneys belonging to tbe county,” not of any, subdivision of it, not of any. town, -city, or district in tbe county. Rev. Stats, art. 1505. And be is required to keep a just and true account of tbe receipts and expenditures of all moneys which shall come into his bands by virtue of his office, and of tbe money due to and from bis county. Article 1506. He is required to make reports of all -county money to the commissioners’ court-’These duties are in direct conflict with the provisions of article 2607 which require an .-accounting to the commissioners of the dz-ain-.age district. He becomes tbe treasurer of tbe drainage district, not under his bond as county treasurer, but when be executes “a good and sufficient bond,” payable not to the county judge .as his bond as treasurer of tbe county, but “payable to the drainage commissioners of such district in a sum equal to the amount of bonds issued, conditioned for the faithful performance of his duty as treasurer of such ■district, which bond shall be approved by tbe said drainage commissioners.” Tbe language seems to preclude any assumption that the funds of the district shall be taken possession of by the county treasurer under tbe bond given by him as county treasurer. On the other band, he obtains possession of such funds and is held liable only under bis bond given as treasurer of tbe drainage district. Article 2608. The liabilities of sureties are strictissimi juris, and cannot be extended beyond tbe terms of their contracts. The mere fact that tbe treasurer had tbe money of tbe -drainage district and failed to account for it did not render bis sureties liable. -It was absolutely necessary to show that tbe money ■came into his hands as county treasurer under tbe terms of bis bond as such treasurer. Heidenheimer v. Brent, 59 Tex. 533; Ryan v. Morton, 65 Tex. 258; Jeff Davis County v. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.) 192 S. W. 291. The bond of the county treasurer is not to be construed so as to read into it everything that it might be deemed should have been in it. It may be that the Legislature should bave'provided that the sureties on tbe bond should be liable for any public moneys coming into the possession of the treasurer, but it is not so provided, and we are confronted with a rule, never to be disregarded in cases like this, that a surety has tbe right to stand upon the strict terms of bis obligation when such terms are ascertainable. This rule is universal, and no covenants that do not clearly appear in the bond can be implied as" against the sureties'. The courts must take the bond as it is, and not endeavor to make it what it ought to be. The liability of tbe surety cannot be extended by implication or construction. Brandt, Sur. & Guar. § 106, and authorities cited in footnotes. Tbe authorities support the doctrine that in all eases of doubt as to the terms of a bond tbe surety must be given the benefit of the doubt. Tbe question now before this court has been fully considered heretofore in the case of Nueces County v. Nueces County Drainage Dist. (Tex. Civ. App.) 258 S. W. 208, and it was held in construing article 2608: “Provision is made for paying the treasurer for his services out of funds of the district. It is clear that as to the funds belonging. to a drainage district the commissioners of the district have the absolute control, and they may make the county treasurer the district treasurer, and require a bond from him, or they may place their funds in a depository chosen by them, and which depository can be required by them to give a good and sufficient bond, and the treasurer to give a similar bond to that required of him when the county has a depositary. It is the evident intention of the statute to relieve the county of all responsibility for funds placed in the hands of its treasurer by a drainage district, and provide means to the district for having full control of its funds, and to protect itself against any loss that may arise from any misapplication of its funds by its treasurer. If the statute had permitted the drainage district to select any person other than the county treasurer for its treasurer, it would never have been thought for a moment that the county was responsible for him, and yet the treasurer of the county is just as separate from the treasurer of the district as though he were a different person. The bond to be required of the treasurer of the district was a district affair, over which the county had no control, and for an infraction of which the county could not be held liable.” That was held in a case in which it was -sought to recover from the county for money collected by its treasurer belonging to tbe district. Tbe court went farther, and beld appropriately to tbe case now under, consideration : [270] “The bond required by law to be given by the county treasurer does not cover drainage funds, and on that bond the treasurer would not be liable to any one for the district funds.” We have had no reasons presented that would incline us to change the ruling quoted, but we reiterate the same as the law of this case. It is insisted that the ruling cited was not necessary, to a decision of the case cited, but we think differently. If it was obiter dictum in the cited case, we think it stated the law, and we adopt it in this case, where it will undoubtedly be pertinent to the issues herein. We deem it the only reasonable construction of the statute. The money of the drainage district did not go into the hands of the county treasurer by virtue of his office, for the law did not contemplate or provide for the money being taken in hand by virtue of the county treasurer’s bond, but provides for another and different bond before the treasurer can take lawful possession. And if the statute requiring the other bond be unconstitutional as claifned by appellees, they can obtain no comfort from that fact, because no provision is made for the drainage district funds to be handled by the county treasurer as such, and he illegally possessed himself of funds not belonging to the county and not named in his bond, and his sureties would not be liable. There was no violation of the official duties of the treasurer in taking possession of the drainage district funds, whatever may have been his personal moral turpitude. It was the duty of the drainage commissioners to use the means placed in their hands' by the plain language of the statute to protect the funds, and, failing to do that, they cannot pass the dire effects of their negligence to the sureties on a bond which did not contemplate liability for drainage district money. The law did not contemplate it, but made, full and adequate provision for the protection of such funds. It is very regrettable that the funds should have been misappropriated and lost t'o the taxpayers of the district through the failure to use the lfieans given by law for''their protection, but courts cannot permit the desire to protect taxpayers against the iniquity of disloyal officers to influence their construction of the law. Individual rights must be protected even .though it inflicts financial' loss upon a whole community. The judgment will be affirmed as .to George E. Linesetter, but will be reversed as to the American Surety Company of New York, and judgment here rendered that appellees take nothing as to said surety company and pay all costs in its behalf expended.