TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Boswell v. Lainhart

Boswell v. Lainhart, 2 La. 397 (1831)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1831
Citations
2 La. 397
Cited by 4
Headnotes
The casual insertion in a bond of an additional clause or condition not contemplated by the legislature, will not bind the surety. If a bond be taken with reference to a particular law,«t must be construed by it. The lasua} in: of an additional no™contemplated bfníMihe surety, ^ ken with refer-construed by it.
Summary
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP THE FIRST DISTRICT. By an act of the Legislature of 1828, Henry Lainhart was authorized to raise, by means of a lottery, the sum of six thousand dollars; provided that a bond, with sufficient security, to the Governor be given, conditioned for the faithful drawing of the same, and for the expending so much of the sum raised under the authority of the act as may be necessary for the construction, and the application to the use, of a steam-engine made according to his new mode of generating steam and applying it to the propelling of machinery. It was further enacted, that in consideration of the privilege granted, the said Henry Lainhart shall, before availing himself of the said privilege, assign over to the Governor and his successors in office, for the use of the State of Louisiana, the right of causing to be made and using steam-engines on the improved plan, invented by the said Henry Lainhart, for all works properly belonging to the State. In pursuance of this act, Lainhart entered into a bond, with William Gorm-ley his security, in the penal sum of $12,000, with the condition required by the act, and the further condition that he 'l J would pay, and cause to he paid, according to the scheme of sa¿r2 loiteyy, aH ang every prize and prizes that should he drawnhy tickets purchased and to he purchased in said lottery. The plaintiff purchased a half-ticket, which drew a. prize of $1000, which Lainhart refused to pay, and to recover which this suit was brought against him and his security Gormley. The court a quo gave judgment against Lain-hart, and dismissed the suit as regarded the other defendant,. Gormley. The plaintiff appealed. 1st. The law provides only for a bond to secure that the lottery shall he drawn, and for the appropriation of $6000 of the profits to the improvement in steam. 2d. The condition that Lainhart should pay the prizes is null, because the Governor had no authority to take the same. — M’ Caleb vs. Maxwell, 5 Mass. Rep. 191. 13 Mass. Rep. 262.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Martin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff and appellant complains of the judgment of the District Court, which disallowed his claim on the defendant as surety of Lainhart, on a bond given by the latter to the Governor, in consequence of the privilege granted by the Legislature to raise a certain sum of money by lottery; the plaintiff being the holder of a ticket entitled to a prize. The penalty of the bond is $12,000.

By the act granting the privilege of a lottery to the defendant’s principal, a bond with surety for the drawing of the lottery and the application of $6000 to a certain purpose, was required. The governor took a bond, with the further condition, that the prizes be faithfully paid. The District Judge thought the bond required by the Legislature was intended only for the security of the state' to insure the *399 drawing of the lottery, and the faithful application of the proceeds to the use tor which they were intended.

The lasua} in: of an additional no™contemplated bfníMihe surety, ^ ken with refer-construed by it.

We think he did not err. The casual insertion of an additional clause, not contemplated by the Legislature; the smallness of the penalty, merely the double of the sum to applied to the intended use, will leave the rights of the pub-lie absolutely unprotected, if the sum could be objected, as it would immediately be -by the holders of the tickets.

As to the principal debtor, there cannot be any doubt of his liability; but the surety bound himself only to pay the penalty to the state on certain conditions. The bond is taken with reference to the law, and must be construed by it. Nothing shews any claim under it to any part of the penalty by individuals.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed with costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →
1875–1876: 11925–1926: 11929–1930: 11961–1962: 118752026peak 1875 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Miller v. Bonner111 So. 776 (La. 1926)
  2. Martinolich v. Albert143 So. 2d 745 (La. Ct. App. 1962)
  3. Salmen Brick & Lumber Co. v. Owen121 So. 201 (La. Ct. App. 1929)
  4. LeBlanc v. Succession of Massieu27 La. 324 (1875)

Most recent

  1. Martinolich v. Albert143 So. 2d 745 (La. Ct. App. 1962)
  2. Salmen Brick & Lumber Co. v. Owen121 So. 201 (La. Ct. App. 1929)
  3. Miller v. Bonner111 So. 776 (La. 1926)
  4. LeBlanc v. Succession of Massieu27 La. 324 (1875)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list