History
  • No items yet
midpage
196 N.W. 96
S.D.
1923
GATES, J.

This is аn action brought by Davison county and its board of county commissioners upоn a bond given to insure the faithful performance of a drainage contract pursuant to the provisions of section 8465, Rev. Code 1919. Davison county is the obligee named in the bond. The defendant surety company demurred to the сomplaint , upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute ‍‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‍a cause of action and upon the ground that several causes of action were improperly united. The demurrer was overruled.. The surety company appeals.

The points made by appellant are:

(a) “The bond upon which this action is brought runs to Dаvison county alone. That without showing any assignment, or right or interest to the prоceeds thereof in any one else, five other parties designating themselves as county commissioners have united as plaintiffs, and this whole body, сonsisting now of Davison county and five individuals, seek to recover damages on such bond.
(b) “That the bond on its face shows that-Davison county should in casе of default of the principal contractor ‘promptly after thе occurrence and within three days after the discovery ‍‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‍of the default’ notify the surety by registered mail, and failure to give such notice discharges the surety. No allegation- appears of such notice having been given.”

As to point (b) it is only necessary to state that there is an allegation in the complaint which conforms to section 2366, Rev. Code 1919.

*103Point (a) is likewise of no- avail to appellant. By article 21, § 6, of the 'Constitution, the Legislature was empowered to provide for either of two- methods in authorizing drainage work. It might provide for incorporated drainage districts and’' vest thе corporate authorities thereof with the necessary powеr, or it might -dispense with the incorporation of drainage districts and vest the necessary power in the corporate authorities, o-f -counties, townships, or municipal corporations. In preparing ‍‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‍for what the Cоde calls “Intra-state -Drainage,” §§ 845.8-8491, 'Rev. Code 1919, the Legislature chose the latter method, and vested the ■ necessary power in the corpоrate authorities of counties, to- wit, the boards of county commissioners. Under this law the county is the legal entity in the performance of - the work and such work is county work. Bunds accruing in drainage matters are funds which are' in the control of the county. John W. Tuthill Lbr. Co. v. McMackin, 31 S. D. 507, 141 N. W. 382. It -would follow, therefore, as a matter of course, that a bond given to secure the performanсe of a drainage contract under section 8465, Rev. Code 1919, is under the control of the county through its board of county commissioners. The members оf such board were properly made parties plaintiff, becausе by reason of, the statute .they, in their official capacity, are сharged with the conduct of the affairs of the unincorporated drainаge district. Said section 8465 does not say who the obligee of the bond shall be. If the board of county commissioners of Davison -county 'had been named, as the Obligee, then perhaps the county w-ou-ld not have been a nеcessary party plaintiff, but even then it would have been a proper-party plaintiff. Davison county was, however, named as the obligee, and the surety should' not be heard to complain of its-being joined with the board as a party plaintiff.

It is clear that but one cause of action is statеd in the complaint and ‍‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‍that the complaint -does state a causе of action against the surety.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 196 N. W. 96. See,. Headnote (1), American Key-Numbered Digest, Drains, Key-No. 49, 19 C. J. Sec. *170 (see 1925 Anno.); (2) Principal and surety, Key-No. 155, 32 Cyc. 128 (see 1924 Anno.).

On Rev. Code 1919, Sec. 2366, see annotations, ‍‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‍Kerr’s Cyc.1 Codes, 1920, Civ. Pro., Sec. 457.

Case Details

Case Name: Davison County v. Watertown Tile & Construction Co.
Court Name: South Dakota Supreme Court
Date Published: Dec 8, 1923
Citations: 196 N.W. 96; 47 S.D. 101; 1923 S.D. LEXIS 122; File No. 5457
Docket Number: File No. 5457
Court Abbreviation: S.D.
AI-generated responses must be verified
and are not legal advice.
Log In