fully perform all the duties of his office. He was allowed by statute a commission for receiving, keeping and paying out money in pursuance of any statute or order of court.' (Rev. Stat. sec. 828.) It was well said by Judge Caldwell, delivering the unanimous judgment of the circuit court of appeals, that 'for more than a century the clerks of the circuit courts of the United States have been receiving and paying out the moneys of suitors in those courts in the usual and customary manner, and during that time neither the clerks nor the suitors nor the court ever dreamed that they were performing this service as private individuals and were not officially responsible for the moneys they were receiving as such clerks.'"

Distinguishing this case, counsel for the appellants state that the United States statute allows the clerk a commission for receiving, keeping and paying out money in pursuance of any statute or order of the court while the statute of Illinois contains no such power, and in this case the clerk was paid nothing for his services in taking and keeping the money. This distinction is of no importance, for the statute fixes the clerk's compensation at $9000 a year, which he received for all his services in the performance. of the duties of his office. The rule of law is well settled. in this State that a public officer and his sureties are liable upon his official bond for money received by him by virtue of his office as an insurer, and are not relieved from liability by the loss of the money without the officer's negligence or default. It was so held in Estate of Ramsay v. People, supra, Swift v. Trustees of Schools, 189 Ill. 584, Oeltjen v. People, 160 id. 409, and Thompson v. Board of Trustees, 30 id. 99. In those cases it was clearly decided that the liability of the officer was not that of a bailee but that he was an insurer of the funds coming to his possession, and could not be relieved from payment by unavoidable accident or by the misfeasance or negligence or felony of another, or by any other reason than the act of God or the

public enemy. The same doctrine is held in United States v. Prescott, 3 How. 578, and Smythe v. United States, 188 U. S. 156. The decisions of this court have settled the question in this State, and, though there is a sharp conflict of decision in other States, are in accordance with the great weight of authority elsewhere. Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86; District Township of Taylor v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550; Rose v. Douglass Township, 52 Kan. 451; Inhabitants of Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112; Perley v. County of Muskegon, 32 Mich. 132; County of Redwood v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45; Griffin v. Mississippi Levee Comrs. 71 Miss. 767; State v. Moore, 74 Mo. 413; Jefferson County Comrs. v. Lionberger, 3 Mont. 231; Bush v. Johnson County, 48 Neb. 1; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 162; McEachron v. Township of New Providence, 35 N. J. L. 528; Mason v. Directors of the Poor, 126 Pa. 445; Tillinghast v. Merrill, 151 N. Y. 135; Wilson v. Wichita County, 67 Tex. 647; Fairchild v. Hedges, 14 Wash. 117; Supervisors of Omro v. Kaime, 39 Wis. 468.

The subject matter of the cases which have been cited was public money. It is argued on behalf of appellants that there is a distinction in the liability of a public officer between public funds and private funds, and the distinction seems to have been recognized in People v. Faulkner, 107 N. Y. 477. So, also, in argument in the cases of Wilson v. People, 19 Colo. 199, and Fairchild v. Hedges, supra, although the distinction was not involved in the latter case. The existence of any such distinction was denied in the cases of Morgan v. Long, 29 Iowa, 434, Havens v. Lathene, 75 N. C. 505, and State v. Gatzweiler, 49 Mo. 17. In the case of Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Owens, 86 Minn. 188, the question was directly involved, the suit being an action against a clerk of the district court for money paid into court in a condemnation proceeding and lost without the fault of the clerk, through the failure of the bank in which he had deposited it. The court held that a

public officer is liable for the loss of private funds received and held by him in his official capacity, and that in respect to his liability for the loss of money in his official custody there is no distinction between public and private funds. The court said: "Upon principle we are unable to make any distinction between public and private funds in the hands of a public officer as to his liability therefor. In both cases the funds are paid to the officer in obedience to the mandate of the statute, which makes no distinction between them and imposes the same duty as to each. The same bond secures both in the same terms. Can it be true that a county can recover on such a bond the amount of a forfeited recognizance lost by the clerk without his fault, but that money received by him in his official capacity for a private party and so lost cannot be recovered by an action on the same bond? It is not the character of the fund but the statute and the considerations of public policy which imposed the liability upon the officer. The same considerations of public policy which require the public officers who receive public money to be held to a strict measure of responsibility therefor apply just as forcibly to private funds officially received by them, for private property is just as sacred as public property." The obligation of the officer to pay over private funds is the same as his obligation to pay over public funds, and the measure of accountability to be applied is the same in either case.

The Appellate Court erred in entering a final judgment on the pleadings against the defendants. There was not trial in the circuit court. That court held that the defendants' affidavits of merits showed a good defense to the action. The Appellate Court differed from the circuit court upon this question of law. Its judgment should not have been final against the defendants for the plaintiffs' claim but should have remanded the cause, with directions to sustain the motion to strike the affidavits of merits and pleas,

leaving it open to the defendants to take such action thereafter as they might be advised.

The judgment of the Appellate Court will be reversed and the cause remanded to the circuit court.

Reversed and remanded.

(No. 11348.-Judgment affirmed.)

THE AMERICAN MILLING COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, vs. THE INDUSTRIAL BOARD OF ILLINOIS et al. Defendants in Error.

Opinion filed June 21, 1917-Rehearing denied October 4, 1917.

1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION-record need not show that copy of decision of arbitration committee is received from the Industrial Board. Paragraph (b) of section 19 of the Workmen's Compensation act does not require that the record shall show that a copy of the decision of the committee of arbitration or notification of the time it was filed was actually received by the parties, but only requires that such copy and notification be sent to each party by the Industrial Board.

2. SAME-what question cannot be raised for the first time in the circuit court. The question of want of jurisdiction by the Industrial Board for lack of notice of the accident or for failure to make claim for compensation within six months, as required by the Workmen's Compensation law, cannot be raised for the first time on motion for new trial in the circuit court.

3. SAME when question of jurisdiction is waived. Where it is agreed on the hearing before the arbitration committee that both parties are under the Workmen's Compensation act, that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment and that the sole question of dispute is one of dependency for support, the right to raise the question of want of jurisdiction for lack of notice of the accident or failure to make claim for compensation within six months is waived.

4. SAME-proof that the deceased husband contributed to wife's support is unnecessary. The duty to support his wife is imposed by law on the husband solely because of the marriage relation, and under section 7 of the Workmen's Compensation act it is only necessary to prove that a deceased husband left a widow and children surviving him, without showing the dependency of the wife or that the husband contributed to her support.

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Judge, presiding.

BROWN, BROWN & BROWN, for plaintiff in error.

STONE & ISLEY, and ROSCOE HERGET, for defendants in error.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE CARTER delivered the opinion of the

court:

This case arises under the Workmen's Compensation act now in force, coming here upon writ of error to review the decision of the circuit court of Peoria county quashing the writ of certiorari, the trial judge having certified that in his opinion this was a cause proper to be reviewed by this court.

In August, 1915, plaintiff in error company was engaged in business in South Bartonville, Illinois, and employed Nick Evenoff in its business at that place. On August 3, 1915, an accident occurred which resulted in Evenoff's death. An application for adjustment of claim was filed with the State Industrial Board on May 1, 1916, and an arbitration committee was duly appointed. Thereafter, on a hearing before said committee, an award was entered in favor of the administrator of said Evenoff's estate for six dollars a week for 416 weeks, and notice of the decision of the arbitration committee was mailed by the Industrial Board to plaintiff in error June 2, 1916.

It is contended by the plaintiff in error that the record should show, but does not show, that a copy of the decision and notification of the time when it was filed were received by plaintiff in error. The statute does not so require. Paragraph (b) of section 19 provides, among other things, that the decision of the arbitration committee shall be filed with the Industrial Board, "which board shall immediately send to each party or his attorney a copy of such decision, together with a notification of the time when it was filed, and