A.W.McG. gave a bond to the Bank of the United States, with
sureties, conditioned for the faithful performance of the duties of
the office of cashier of one of the offices of discount and deposit
during the term he should hold that office. The president and
directors of the bank having discovered that he had been guilty of
a gross breach of trust, passed a resolution, at Philadelphia on 27
October, 1820, "that A.W.McG., cashier, &c., be, and he is
hereby suspended from office, till the further pleasure of the
board be known," and another resolution
"That the president of the office at Middletown be authorized
and requested to receive into his care, from A.W.McG., the cashier,
the cash, bills discounted, books, papers, and other property in
said office, and to take such measures for having the duties of
cashier discharged, as he may deem expedient."
These resolutions were immediately transmitted by mail to the
president of the office at Middletown, who received them on the
morning of Sunday, the 29th of the same month, but did not
communicate them to the cashier nor carry them into effect until
the afternoon of the 30th, between four and five o'clock,
held that the sureties continued liable for his defaults
until that time.
On such a bond, the recovery against the sureties is limited to
the penalty.
Partial payments having been made by the sureties (subject to
all questions), the application of these payments was made by
deducting them from the penalty of the bond, and allowing interest
on the balance thus resulting, from the commencement of the suit,
there having been no previous demand of the penalty, or
acknowledgement that the whole was due.
But interest was refused to the sureties on the payments.
Page 25 U. S. 512
MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
This cause comes up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of
the United States, held for the District of Connecticut, in which
the defendants here obtained a judgment against the plaintiffs upon
a penal bond in which McGill was principal, the other defendants
sureties.
McGill was cashier of one of the branches of the Bank of the
United States, and this bond was given in the penal sum of $50,000,
conditioned for the due performance of that office.
The replication sets out a great variety of breaches, and the
cause was decided below upon a special verdict, by which was found
for the plaintiffs the sum of $66,548, consisting of a variety of
items upon which interest is
Page 25 U. S. 513
charged severally, from the date of the embezzlement or other
breach, to the time of finding the verdict.
The verdict then finds two payments, one of $20,000, made by one
of the sureties on 16 December, 1820; the other of $500, made by
another of the sureties on 22 December, 1820, on which they also
calculate interest to the date of the verdict, and deducting the
amount of principal and interest, strike a balance of
$43,182.50.
It also finds the following facts:
"That the President and Directors of the Bank of the United
States, on 27 October, 1820, at Philadelphia, passed the following
resolution, to-wit:"
" Whereas it appears by the report of a committee of the office
of discount and deposit at Middletown that Arthur W. McGill,
cashier of that office, has been guilty of a gross breach of trust
in knowingly suffering over drafts to be made by individuals; also
by making overdrafts himself; therefore resolved that A. W. McGill,
cashier of the office at Middletown, be and he is hereby suspended
from office till the further pleasure of the board be known."
"On motion, resolved that the president of the office at
Middletown be authorized and requested to receive into his care
from A. W. McGill, the cashier, the cash, bills discounted, books,
papers, and other property in said office, and to take such
measures for having the duties of cashier discharged, as he may
deem expedient."
Which resolutions were immediately transmitted by mail to the
president of the Middletown office, who received them on the
morning of Sunday, the 29th of the month, but did not communicate
them to McGill until the afternoon of the 30th, between the hours
of four and five in the afternoon.
It then finds that all the breaches were incurred before the
30th, and goes on to find alternatively, so as to enable the court
to give judgment according to its views of the law, as between the
parties. There appear to have been various questions argued in the
court below, some of which were decided for the plaintiff, some for
the defendant, but
Page 25 U. S. 514
as the plaintiff below seeks an affirmance of the judgment, and
has not sued out a writ of error, it follows that we confine
ourselves to those points only which were decided against the
plaintiff here. These were two, one of them going to the whole
right to recover, the other to the application of the payments
towards the discharge of the sum of be recovered.
The first of these was whether the sureties were not discharged
ipso facto from further liability, by the resolution of
the parent bank on the 27th, or if not on that day, then on the
29th, the day on which it was received at Middletown by mail. If
discharged on either of those days, it would follow that the
plaintiffs below could not have judgment, since the finding was up
to the day following.
We are unanimously and decidedly of opinion that the ground
assumed by the defendants below cannot be maintained. What was
there in the resolutions of the parent bank to discharge the
obligors at all from their liability? The resolution was only to
suspend, and this implies the right to restore. The cashier's
salary went on, and had the board rescinded their resolution, what
necessity would there have existed for a redelivery of his
bond?
But there is no necessity for placing the decision on this
ground, since, notwithstanding the resolution of the board is
expressed in the present tense, a future operation must necessarily
be given it from a cause that could not be overcome, the distance
of the parties from each other. Time became indispensable to giving
notice, and the day on which the communication reached the
president of the Middletown bank, was a day not to be profaned by
the business of a bank. There was, then, no obligation to deliver
the notice and dispossess the cashier until the 30th, and the law
makes no fractions of a day.
The court below, in applying the payments, directed them to be
deducted from the penalty of the bond, and then gave interest upon
the balance thus resulting. This, with the exception of the
interest, was the most favorable application possible for the
defendants below, and the interest on the balance having been only
allowed from the date of the suit, and the sum thus ascertained
falling short of the penalty of the bond,
Page 25 U. S. 515
we think the defendant below has nothing to complain of. It will
be discovered by reference to dates that the payments here made
preceded the institution of the suit, and although made by the
sureties, they were made severally, for anything that appears to
the contrary from the verdict. Technically, then, the judgment to
be entered would have been a judgment for the penalty of the bond,
and, in applying the partial payment, the court would have been
governed by those principles which have been transferred in
practice from the courts of equity to the courts of law, in
deciding on what terms a party shall be released from the penalty
of his bond. These always are on payment of principal, interest,
and costs. And it can constitute no objection to the application of
this principle to the case of these obligors, that no interest was
allowed them during the short interval between the payment and the
suing out of the writ, since the breaches were incurred long
before, and interest for the same period is refused to the
bank.
Judgment affirmed with six percent interest.