ARK.] STATE USE SCHOOL DIST. No. 14 'SURETY CO. 673 STATE USE SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 14 V. AMERICAN SURETY COMPAN Y. 4-3114 -0Pinithi deliVered June 26, 19331. VENUE—ACTION ON OFFICIAL BOND.—An action on the bond of a county treastirer, under Crawford & Moses . ' Dig., .§ 1165, could be maintained only in the county of Which' he was *treasurer. • • . Appeal from Pulaski 'Circuit .Court, Third .Division ; Marvin Harris, Judge.; reversed. .
674_ STATE USE , SCHOOL DI§T. No.141). Am._SURETY Co. [187 STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This snit was instituted in the Pulaski Circuit Court in the name-of the State of Arkansas for use and benefit of certain school districts in Lawrence County against the -American Surety Company of New York, Oliver T. Massey, County Treasurer, and other defendants, seeking to recover judgment for a large sum of money due the respective school districts. The complaint_alleged, in effect, that Massey became treasurer of Lawrence County .on January 1, 1931, and executed his official bond as required by law, and that the American Surety Company was surety thereon ; that the Lawrence County Bank .had theretofore been named as depository for the county funds for Lawrence County, which depository agreement was in full force and effect on January 1, 1931 ; that the depository bank!s bond.was signed by individuals and_ not by a , corporate surety ; that the Lawrence County Bank failed _on November '4, 1931, and was taken over by the 'State Banking Department, at Which time the treasurer had on deposit in said bank $59,000 of schoel funds; that due demand had been made Upon the treasurer for said fUnds, but nO part thereof had been paid. . The trial court, after hearing the testimony introduced in said cause, directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendants, American ,Surety Company and Oliver T. Massey, Treasurer, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted. Because of the view which this court takes of the law, it will not be necessary to state in further detail the facts. W. E. BelOate and Horace Chamberlin, for appellant. Cuntninghaml& Cunningham, W. P. Smith and J. H. Townsend, for appellees. - JOHNSON, C. J., (after stating the facts). It will be seen from the statement of facts that this is a suit, primarily, upon the bond of the county treasurer of Law-renCe County. In the outset we are confronted with the question of jurisdiction of the trial court.
ARK.] STATE USE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 14 v. Am. SURETY CO. 675 • Section 1165 of 'Crawford & Moses' Digest, in part, reads ' as follows : "Actions for the following causes must be brought in the county where the cause or some. part thereof arose. * * * Third : On actions upon the official bond- of a public officer, except as provided in § 1175." Section-1175 of Crawford & Moses' Digest reads as "All actions for debts due the State of Arkansas, and 'all actions in favor of any State officer, State board or commiSSioner, in Their official capacity, and all actions which are authorized . by law to be brought in the name of -the State and all actions against sUch boards or . -commissioners or State officer, for or on account of any Official act done or . Omitted to be done, shall be . 'brought and prosecuted• in the County where the defendant resideS." In the case of Edwards v. Jackson, 176 Ark. 107, 2 S. W. (2d) 44, which was an action against the sheriff of Montgoniery County and tbe sureties on his bond . as such, and was brought in the Polk County Circuit Court, it was alleged by the plaintiff in that suit that her husband had been wrongfully killed by the sheriff's PosSe, certain members thereof being residents of Polk County, who . Were served with process in that county. It was there insisted that, as the Polk County residents had been properly sued and served ' with . process in that county, the right existed to sne the sheriff as a joint tort-feasor, in that connty. 'We held, however, • that an action upon the official bond of a county- officer had been localized by § 1165, Crawford & Moses' Digest, and could be brought only in the county in whiéh the cause of action arose, and the suit aganiSt the sheriff and his 'sureties waselismissed upon demurrer, for the reason that the Polk Circuit Court was. without jurisdiction of the cause of action, notWithstanding the allegation that all of the defendants were joint tort-feasors, two of whom had been properly sued in Polk County. In the more recent case of Leonard v. Henry, ante p. 75, this court • again . approved the doctrine announced in Edwards v. Jackson, and used the following
language- in ' 'reference - thereto-:- The-. 'language and meaning of tbe statute on the:questions involved herein is so plain as to admit of no construction.. •It was within the competency-of the Legislature to enact it ; it 'is not in conflict with :the Constitution of tbe State, and does not deprive appellants of any rights guaranteed by the . Constitution of tbe United States. "The venue of tbe action, as shown by the allegations of tbe complaint, was in Montgomery County, where tbe cause. arose, no part of -it bay ing arisen in Polk County, where the suit was brought, and the demurrer was properly sustained. ' Bledsoe y. Pierce:Williams Co., 147 Ark. 51, 226 S. W..5k ; _Reed v. Williams, 163 Ark.. 520, 260 S.M. 438." From.what we have . said, it is perfec • tly • e • vident that the Yenue of this action, as shown .by the ollegations of the complaint, was in Lawrence County, where tbe _cause of action arose and where the official :bond of the treasurer was executed, and not in Pulaski County, where the suit was filed. . . It is not necessary to discus's othei . interesting questions presentedin 'briefs. . . For the error indicated, the judgment of the Pulaski Connty Circuit Court is reversed, and the cause of action dismissed:
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.