Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/558

 5e6 FEDERAL REPORTER. �not maintain a suit? I have seen no authorities that go to that extent, and I shall not be the first to announoe sueh a doctrine. I wili do nothing that would have such a direct tendency to convert this state into a place of sanctuary for thieves, robbers, and embez- zlers of public property. Of course, it is not intended to apply this language to the defendant, but it shows the direct tendency and the inevitable resuit, if the principle contended for by the defendant's counsel should be reduced to practice. Few, if any, cases of this sort can be found. In fact, the necessity for them can but seldom arise in a law-abiding eommunity. And, had there been a healthy public sentiment in the neighborhood where the parties who robbed the treasury of the plaintiff were arrested, there would have been no occasion for bringing this suit. �But the defendant insists that no recovery can be had nere, for the alleged reason that the plaintiff had no right to place money in his hands for any such a purpose; that no such a payment could be made by the plaintiff and a liability be created thereby. We must bear in mind that the money belonging to the plaintiff was stolen ; that it had passed beyond the reach and control of the plaintiff and its ofii- cers, without the consent or fault of either, and had found its way into the hands of other parties, where nothing but legal process could reach it. The $2,000 package had been placed in the hands of the defendant, without the knowledge and consent of the offi- cers of Marion county, who had the lawful right to control it. That package was undeniably the property of the plaintiff. The possession thereof by the plaintiff or its ofScers seemed indispensable in the prosecution of the robbers. Meintyre had the package of money. He was out of reach of process issued by the lowa courts. He was not willing to surrender the money until the plaintiff would deposit with him $1,500, in lieu thereof, to indemnify him against loss which might arise from his going on the bond of Thompson and Hetherington. This was done by the plaintiff, and afterwards the defendant was fully discharged from his liability on the bond. After that he paid out a part of the money on suits against the county, or its agents, and the defendant received credit therefor. He received the money from the county, or its representatives, to indemnify him against loss. He lost nothing, and as the money was placed in his hands to hold simply until he should be discharged on the appear- ance bond, it eannot, in any sense, be regarded as a payment out of the public money of the plaintiff, as claimed by the defendant. When he was released from liability on the bond he ought to have paid back ��� �