District of Columbia v. Petty,
229 U.S. 593 (1913)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

District of Columbia v. Petty, 229 U.S. 593 (1913)

District of Columbia v. Petty

No. 316

Argued May 8, 1913

Decided June 9, 1913

229 U.S. 593


Sureties on the official bond of a public officer are not, in the absence of statutory provisions, responsible for his failure to account for moneys received and held by him extra-officially and not specified in the bond.

Moneys received by the Commissioner of the District of Columbia from citizens for street improvements under the permit system were not public moneys in any legal sense, but funds of private citizens held extra-officially by the public officers.

Prior to the making of the order of June 13, 1888, establishing the Permit Fund, there was no law, rule or regulation making the Auditor of the District of Columbia accountable for public moneys, nor is there anything in that order or in the Act of March 3, 1891, c. 246, imposing responsibility on the Auditor for faults of the disbursing clerk provided for therein or of the pay clerk referred to in said order.

37 App.D.C. 156 affirmed.

Page 229 U. S. 594

The facts, which involve the liability of sureties on an official bond and the responsibility of a public officer for moneys other than public, are stated in the opinion.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.