{ "id": 5198475, "name": "Gustav Schoeneman, Impleaded, etc., v Henry F. Martyn et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Schoeneman v. Martyn", "decision_date": "1897-01-21", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "412", "last_page": "417", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "68 Ill. App. 412" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "16 Ia. 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2291633 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/16/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 Mass. 295", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 713228 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/105/0295-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 Ill. 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2716806 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/96/0475-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 448, "char_count": 8960, "ocr_confidence": 0.542, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.411867578422581e-08, "percentile": 0.4832837744594376 }, "sha256": "90e860da197e4904d48e9fb1579986dacecf503a40d9cfc92b47d61c6685d237", "simhash": "1:ac139b9b7a42f024", "word_count": 1562 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:19:54.666299+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Gustav Schoeneman, Impleaded, etc., v Henry F. Martyn et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nWhether the third plea was technically good or not, need not be discussed. Appellee was bound to prove a failure to comply with the conditions of the bond.\nThe condition of the bond upon which this suit was brought is as follows:\n\u201c Whereas, the said Gus. Eosenberger has been elected master of exchequer of the said America Lodge Ho. 333 for the term commencing on the first day of July, A. D. 1893, and ending on the first day of January, A. D. 1894, or until the installation of his successor in office, by reason whereof divers sums of money, bonds, choses in action, chattels and other property belonging to said lodge Ho. 333 will come into his hands.\nHow, therefore, the condition of the above obligation is such, that if the said Gus. Eosenberger, master of exchequer, shall keep a regular and correct account of all moneys received by him as master of exchequer, and pay out the same, or any portion thereof, under the proper order of said lodge Ho. 333, and not otherwise; and shall safely keep, and upon the expiration of his term of office, and whenever by said lodge Ho. 333 required, shall render unto said lodge Ho. 333 a just and true account of all such sum or sums of money, bonds, choses in action, chattels and other property, as shall at any time have come into his hands, charge or possession as master of exchequer of said lodge Ho. 333; and shall, at the expiration of his term of office, pay and deliver over to his successor in office upon demand of him made by his successor or by said lodge Ho. 333, all such balances or sums of money, bonds, choses in action, chattels and other property, which shall at any time have come into his hands, possession or control, as master of exchequer of said lodge Ho. 333, and if the said Gus. Eosenberger, master of exchequer, shall faithfully perform and do all other acts required of him to be done or performed by the constitution and by-laws of said lodge Ho. 333; and in case of failure of said Gus. Eosenberger to faithfully perform all the duties aforesaid, all necessary court costs, expenses, and a reasonable attorney\u2019s fee to be fixed by the court, shall be taxed against said Gus. Eosenberger, and for the payment of which this obligation is further charged; and if the said Gus. Eosenberger, master of exchequer, shall not wrong said lodge Ho. 333, to the value of anything, nor take part or share directly or indirectly in any illegal distribution of the funds or other property of said lodge Ho. 333, but shall, to the best of his ability, endeavor to prevent any such perversion of lodge property, and shall in all things well and truly, honestly and faithfully, perforin all and singular his duties as master of exchequer of said lodge Ho. 333, during his continuance in said office, then the above obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue.\u201d\nUpon the trial the following stipulation was made:\n\u201c It is hereby stipulated that the minute book offered in evidence shows that G-us. Eosenberger, treasurer of said lodge, served as master of exchequer or treasurer for two consecutive terms, and each term was regularly elected and installed in office, and that all requirements provided for the election and installation in office of said treasurer, as laid down in the constitution and by-laws, were complied with.\nThat at the close of said Eosenberger\u2019s first term of office as treasurer, his books and accounts were regularly audited by an auditing committee duly appointed, and the books and accounts of said Eosenberger were found to be correct, and said books showed that he should have had a balance of $564.72 on hand, which report was duly presented to the lodge and adopted.\nThat before Eosenberger entered on his second term, he presented his bond to the trustees, dated July 13, 1893, and the said trustees approved the same and reported to the lodge their approval, and the lodge adopted the report of the trustees and accepted said bond.\nThat after the bond had thus been approved and accepted said Eosenberger was duly installed in office as his oto successor; that during his second term of office, from June 6, 1893, to January 4, 1894, said Eosenberger received $356.25 and dispersed regularly $367.60, leaving him chargeable with $553.37.\nThat at the close of Eosenberger\u2019s second term the books were audited and found correct, leaving him chargeable with $553.37; that the report was presented to the lodge and adopted.\u201d\nIt is further stipulated that the minutes show the amount received each meeting night and the amount expended, and the accounts are always balanced, the following form being used: \u201cAmount on hand in the hands of the master of exchequer at last meeting \u201d (so much), \u201c amount received \u201d (so much), \u00a3\u00a3 total $......,\u201d \u201c amount disbursed \u201d (so much), \u00a3: balance on hand in master of exchequer \u201d (so much). It is also stipulated that at the close of Rosenberger\u2019s term the minutes show a balance of $553.57.\nThe treasurer testified that at the commencement of his last term he did not have any money belonging to the lodge in his possession. An objection to this testimony was sustained, and the court refused to permit appellant to show that the treasurer, at the expiration of his first term, had spent all of the apparent balance on hand, and was then a defaulter to the extent of the entire amount which should have been on hand, and that nothing Avas received during his second term from transactions of the first term.\nThe latest utterance of the Supreme Court touching the question here presented, is in Stern et al. v. The People, 96 Ill. 475. Following this, we must hold that the bond covers future transactions only. The condition, after reciting his election, and when his term will begin, says: \u201c By reason whereof divers sums of money will come into his hands.\u201d Its language is \u201c shall \u201d pay over all money, \u201c which shall at any time have come into his hands as master of exchequer.\u201d\nThe recitals show this to have reference only to what should come into his hands subsequent to the giving of the bond.\nAll that came into his hands after the bond was given, has been paid over. What was not in his hands when the bond was given and never thereafter came, the bond does not cover.\nThe jury should not have been instructed to find for appellee, and appellant should have been permitted to shoiv the actual state of the treasury Avhen the bond Avas given. Stern et al. v. The People, 96 Ill. 475; Inhabitants of Rochester v. Randall et al., 105 Mass. 295; The County of Mahaska v. Ingalls, 16 Ia. 81.\nIn the case at bar, the treasurer made no report at the end of his first term. A committee examined his books, and reported that he should have on hand some $564.77.\nWhen shown this report the treasurer said that \u201c he was satisfied the record was a correct statement of the condition of his books,\u201d or, as one witness testified, \u201c After the books were all balanced, I said, \u2018 That is the balance on the books as balanced,\u2019 and he said, \u2018Well, that is correct,\u2019 some words to that effect.\u201d\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is reversed and the cause remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman" } ], "attorneys": [ "J. Henry Kraft, attorney for appellant, Schoeneman.", "C. E. & G. D. Anthony, attorneys for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Gustav Schoeneman, Impleaded, etc., v Henry F. Martyn et al.\n1. Official Bonds\u2014Cover Future Transactions Only.\u2014An official bond, which, after reciting the election of the officer, and when his term of office will begin, and that \u201cby reason whereof divers sums of money will come into his hands,\u201d provides that he should pay over all money which shall at any time come into his hands as such officer, covers future transactions only, and its recitals have reference only to moneys coming into his hands subsequent to the execution of the bond.\nDebt, on an official bond. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed January 21, 1897.\nStatement of the Case.\nThis action was upon the bond of a treasurer of appellee\u2019s lodge, to recover money which he, it is claimed, should have paid over to his successor in office on proper demand. He served for two consecutive terms, succeeding himself, his last term being from July 13, 1893, to January 13,1894.\nG. Schoeneman, the appellant in this case, is one of the sureties on his bond, and the only one of the defendants who pleaded; the other surety and the principal on the bond are in default.\nSchoeneman pleaded non estfactum, nul tiel corporation, and a plea of performance.\nThe third plea sets out performance of each requirement of the bond, and ends by saying that* \u201c Eosenberger did not violate the condition of the bond during his last term,\u201d and that \u201c since the making of the said bond the plaintiffs have not in any way been damnified by reason of any breach of any matter or thing in said condition mentioned.\u201d\nJ. Henry Kraft, attorney for appellant, Schoeneman.\nC. E. & G. D. Anthony, attorneys for appellees." }, "file_name": "0412-01", "first_page_order": 410, "last_page_order": 415 }