Document Type

Response or Comment

Publication Date



There is much contrariety of decision concerning the liability of public officers for the loss of funds with which they have been entrusted. A recent case illustrates some of the more important phases of the law of such a situation. People for use of Hoyt et al. v. McGrath et al. (Ill. 1917), I17 N. E. 74. In this case the public brought an action of debt on the official bond of the clerk of court for the use of Hoyt and others. Usees had tendered into court a sum of money which the clerk took under the court's order to receive and hold it, but refused to pay it over to the usees as directed by a later order of the court, claiming the money had been received by him in his individual capacity and had been lost without his fault by the failure of the bank in which it had been deposited. Held, that as a public officer is liable as an insurer for private funds received by virtue of his office, the failure of the clerk to pay over the money in question constituted a breach of his official statutory bond.