Gray v. Davis

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gray v. Davis

89 Mo. App. 450, 1901 Mo. App. LEXIS 178

DecidedMay 7, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 89 Mo. App. 450 (Gray v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gray v. Davis, 89 Mo. App. 450, 1901 Mo. App. LEXIS 178 (Mo. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

BOND, J

-The only question presenting any difficulty in this case is whether defendant Davis committed a breach of the bond in suit by receiving the proceeds of checks payable to himself (on account of salary), for more than seventy-five dollars per month, during the period beginning the sixth of November, 1896, and ending the third of November, 189J % The terms of the condition of the bond in suit obligated defendant Davis to perform all the duties of said office (secretary), and to account for and turn over all money coming into his hands as such officer. There is no evidence that he did not discharge his official duties as secretary of the association, nor that he withheld any money which he had received for the association in that capacity. The obligation of sureties can not be extended beyond the reasonable significance of their terms. All the money sought to be recovered from him was paid to him by the treasurer in discharge of his services as secretary, through the medium of checks of the corporation, and, hence, did not falT within the specification expressly stated in the bond of sureties, and they can not be required to [455]*455respond to tbe representative of the corporation for losses thus occasioned.

As the bond did not cover transactions of the nature complained of, it follows that plaintiff is not prejudiced by the judgment in his favor for one hundred dollars, and as defendant did not appeal from the judgment, it will be affirmed.

All concur.

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

BOND, J

-The only question presenting any difficulty in this case is whether defendant Davis committed a breach of the bond in suit by receiving the proceeds of checks payable to himself (on account of salary), for more than seventy-five dollars per month, during the period beginning the sixth of November, 1896, and ending the third of November, 189J % The terms of the condition of the bond in suit obligated defendant Davis to perform all the duties of said office (secretary), and to account for and turn over all money coming into his hands as such officer. There is no evidence that he did not discharge his official duties as secretary of the association, nor that he withheld any money which he had received for the association in that capacity. The obligation of sureties can not be extended beyond the reasonable significance of their terms. All the money sought to be recovered from him was paid to him by the treasurer in discharge of his services as secretary, through the medium of checks of the corporation, and, hence, did not falT within the specification expressly stated in the bond of sureties, and they can not be required to [455]*455respond to tbe representative of the corporation for losses thus occasioned.

As the bond did not cover transactions of the nature complained of, it follows that plaintiff is not prejudiced by the judgment in his favor for one hundred dollars, and as defendant did not appeal from the judgment, it will be affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 Mo. App. 450, 1901 Mo. App. LEXIS 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-davis-moctapp-1901.