City of Hillyard v. Carabin

Citations

• 96 Wash. 366
• 165 P. 381

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations — Officers—Misappropriation — Action on Official Bonds — Evidence—Sufficiency. Where, in an action on the official hond of a city treasurer to recover money lost through his fraud, conspiracy, and forgery, it appears that he created the shortage by illegally paying claims against the city in cash without warrants, in violation of Rem. & Bal. Code, § 7687, it is not necessary to show the fraud and conspiracy or that the names signed to the pay roll were forged names of men who did not work for the city.</p> <p>Same — Officers—Action on Official Bond — Defenses. In such a case, the issuance of warrants by the city council to relieve the cash is of no consequence, since the council could not ratify the treasurer’s illegal act in.paying cash.</p> <p>Same. That an auditing officer did not discover a shortage in the annual accounts of a city treasurer, is no defense to an action on the treasurer’s official bond.</p> <p>Limitation of Actions — Against Surety — Action on Whitten Contract. An action on the official bond of a city treasurer to recover a shortage is not an action upon contract within Rem. Code, § 159, subd. 3, of the statute of limitations, but is based on the wrongful and illegal act of the principal.</p> <p>Same — -Action on Bond of Official — Accrual—Term of Office. The statute of limitations starts to run against an action on the official bond of the city treasurer at the end of the term of office in which the cause of action arose, and not at the time of the different misappropriations; and failure to discover the fraud does not toll the statute, as provided by Rem. Code, § 159, subd. 4, for actions for relief upon the ground of fraud.</p> <p>Costs — On Appeal. Upon modification of a judgment whereby the appellants obtain a more favorable judgment than they secured below, they are entitled to costs of the appeal.</p>