Bessinger v. Dickerson

20 Iowa 260
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided April 13, 1866·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Cole, J.

i. official imaceof the peace. The plaintiff’s claim is based upon a receipt given by the justice of the peace, in his official character, f°r a long list of notes left with him for collection. The only suggestion argued by appellant’s - . rt . _ counsel is, as to the liability ok sureties for notes thus left with a justice of the peace to be collected by him. We have determined, in the case of Latham v. Brown et al., 16 Iowa, 118, that the sureties in such case were liable, and a further examination of the question, has satisfied us of the correctness of that decision.

As to the sureties in the additional bond, it is clear that they would not be- liable for any default occurring before they became sureties, unless the bond was specially so drawn as to cover.the past as well' as pros: pective delinquencies. The County of Mahaska v. Ingalls, 16 Iowa, 81, and authorities cited on page 86. In this case, the evidence is not before us and it does not appear but that the default occurred after the execution and approval of the. additional bond.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bessinger v. Dickerson, 20 Iowa 260 (iowa 1866).

20 Iowa 260 (Bessinger v. Dickerson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Howard v. United States
102 F. 77 (Eighth Circuit, 1900)
Ohning v. City of Evansville
66 Ind. 59 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1879)
Allen v. State, ex rel. Stevens
61 Ind. 268 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1878)
Ind. School Dist. v. McDonald
39 Iowa 564 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1874)
Morgan v. Long
29 Iowa 434 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1870)