(DOWNLOAD) "Southland Enterprises, Inc. v. Newton County" by Mississippi Supreme Court " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Southland Enterprises, Inc. v. Newton County
- Author : Mississippi Supreme Court
- Release Date : January 20, 2003
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 72 KB
Description
Sureties — County Treasurers Bond — "Conventional" Subrogation — When not Permissible — County Commissioners — Powers. Sureties — Subrogation — "Conventional" Subrogation — When not Permissible. 1. A surety may not claim equitable subrogation against an insolvent debtor until the creditor is paid in full, nor may it assert its right to do so under the doctrine of "conventional" subrogation, which arises under a contractual provision of its bond permitting pro tanto subrogation, in the absence of a valid contract. Same — Provisions of Depository Act Part of Bond of County Treasurer. 2. The provisions of Chapter 89, section 1, Laws of 1923, amendatory of section 4767, Revised Codes 1921, relating to depositary Page 2 bonds which the county treasurer must furnish and the board of county commissioners approve to insure the safety and prompt payment of deposits made, became as much a part of a surety bond at the time it was executed and delivered as if written into the contract. County Commissioners — Powers. 3. The authority of the board of county commissioners rests upon statutory powers expressly granted or upon those necessarily implied from those granted, and persons dealing with the board are charged with notice of the limitations upon its powers. Sureties — Bond of County Treasurer — Provision That Surety Entitled to Share in Dividends Paid by Receiver of Insolvent Bank Before County Paid in Full, Invalid as Contrary to Public Policy. 4. Held, that a depositary bond furnished to a county treasurer under Chapter 89, Laws of 1923 and approved by the board of county commissioners providing for "conventional" subrogation, i.e., that in case of the banks failure and before the county was paid in full, the surety should be entitled to share with the county in dividends paid by the receiver, was invalid as contrary to public policy, in that it had a tendency adversely to affect the public welfare and impair the public revenue.