Inhabitants of Hancock v. Hazzard
This text of 66 Mass. 112 (Inhabitants of Hancock v. Hazzard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
A collector of taxes, by accepting the office, takes the risk of the safe-keeping of the money he has actually received. His obligation is not regulated by the law of bailments, and the cases cited to that effect are inapplicable. He is a debtor, an accountant, bound to account for and pay over the money he has collected. The loss of his money, therefore, by theft or otherwise, is no excuse for non-performance; this is founded on the nature of his contract, and considerations of public policy. United States v. Prescott, 8 How. R. 578. It being a duty of the collector to account for and pay over to the treasurer; Inhabitants of Colerain v. Bell, 9 Met. 499, and the excuse of loss by theft being unavailing, the sureties in the bond are liable equally with the principal.
Judgment on the agreed facts for the plaintiffs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
66 Mass. 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inhabitants-of-hancock-v-hazzard-mass-1853.