History
  • No items yet
midpage
People v. Aikenhead
5 Cal. 106
Cal.
1855
Check Treatment
Heydenfeldt. J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

The appointment of Aikenhead as Treasurer was to continue until his successor was qualified, and until this took place, ordinarily, his sureties would be bound. But Aikenhead was elected for a new term and ought to have given a new bond. It devolved upon another officer of the law to see to this, and the sureties upon the bond may well have rested in security under the impression that the obligations of the law had been fulfilled. If another than Aikenhead had been elected and failed to qualify, so as to have continued the latter in office, the defendants would have been chargeable with notice, and indeed their continued liability would have been but an incident of their contract.

The State has no right to visit upon the defendants the effects of the laches of her own officer, whose duty it was to see that a new bond was given.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Aikenhead
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Jul 1, 1855
Citation: 5 Cal. 106
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.