The Treasurer’s Bond Had a Hole in It

The bond recently filed by County Treasurer-elect John W. Maple was in the hands of Corporation Counsel Scott for review, and yesterday that official met with the comptroller and Will H. Parry, secretary of the auditing committee, to give his opinion. In brief, Mr. Scott, while not exactly questioning the validity of the bond, considers it ambiguous on the question of binding community property where the wife joins the husband in the bond, and suggests an additional clause or agreement binding the community property.

Mr. Scott finds that there is no special agreement by the obligors that the community shall be bound for any liability incurred on the bond, and he cannot say that the community would be liable in case of any defalcation. He says: ‘I am informed that the county commissioners required the wives of the sureties to sign the obligation for the purpose of binding the community property as well as the separate property of the obligors. It would seem to me that the intention is to make the community property liable if any action is brought thereon, as well as agreeing that the persons signing the same should be liable individually.’

Mr. Scott then cites a number of supreme court decisions in support of his position. Continuing, he says: ‘Any business prosecuted by the husband in the interest of the community and from which the community receives a benefit is a community business. Therefore, I conclude that unless the business is such that the community will receive a benefit, or the business is one in which the community as such would be authorized to engage, and in such a matter as the community would derive a benefit, it would not be a community business for which the community as such would be liable.

‘It is a serious question in my mind whether the community real estate would be liable, even though a judgment were obtained against both members of the community, if the obligation upon which such judgment were obtained was not for the benefit of the community. But this question has not been passed upon by the supreme court, and I do not feel, under the doubtful state of the law in reference to community property, like giving an opinion that the court would hold that on any such judgment an execution could be levied on the community property as well as the personal estate of both members of the community; yet I am inclined to the opinion that an execution of that kind could be levied on the community real estate and that a sale thereon would cover the interest of the community in said property.’

The bond was also found defective in that the names of a number of wives who were supposed to join their husbands on the bond were either omitted or signed in faint pencil and in the same handwriting, the total of these errors aggregating $6,300 and affecting the value of the bond to that extent. Besides these, one of the signers had since withdrawn from the bond.

The comptroller returned the bond to the corporation counsel for further instructions, noting that Fridolin Wilhelm, one of the sureties, had served written notice that he wished to withdraw. His notice read: ‘Seattle, Wash., Feb. 6th, 1895. To the Hon. Auditing Committee, City of Seattle, Washington—Gentlemen: I, the undersigned, Fridolin Wilhelm, a surety on the official bond of John W. Maple to the city of Seattle, as county treasurer and collector of taxes for the city of Seattle, hereby notify you that I desire to withdraw from said bond and I do hereby withdraw and demand that you strike my name therefrom and that you refuse to accept or approve said bond because of the fact that my name appears thereon. Respectfully, FRIDOLIN WILHELM.’

As the bond filed by Mr. Maple amounted to but $90,000, including the amount for which Mr. Wilhelm qualified, the latter’s withdrawal reduced it to $80,000. The comptroller asked what action should be taken concerning the withdrawal and what notice, if any, should be served on Mr. Maple or other persons concerned. He also called attention to several discrepancies: among the sureties named in the body of the bond were William P. Sammis and Annie Simpson, his wife; Michael Phelan and Catherine Phelan, his wife; William Lewis and Ida Nichols, his wife; Thomas F. Manning and Rhoda A. Manning, his wife; and Lyman Wood and Nellie Wood, his wife. In each case the bond recited that the wives were sureties jointly with their husbands, but none of the wives had signed. The names of Annie Simpson, Catherine Phelan, Ida Nichols and Rhoda A. Manning appeared in the body in faint pencil, apparently written by one hand.

The matter was to come before the auditing committee, which was expected to meet and act on this and the bonds of other city officials recently reappointed.