Armstrong v. The State
| Decision Date | 26 May 1896 |
| Docket Number | 17,603 |
| Citation | 43 N.E. 866,145 Ind. 609 |
| Parties | Armstrong v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Howard Circuit Court.
Affirmed.
Oglebag & Oglebay, for appellant.
W. A Ketcham, Attorney-General, and R. B. Beauchamp, for State.
Appellant was tried and convicted upon an indictment charging that while he was the deputy treasurer of Tipton county, he embezzled the money and funds of said county, with the collection, receiving, safe-keeping, transfer, and disbursement of which he was charged and intrusted as such deputy treasurer. The indictment was returned under section 1942, R. S. 1881 (section 2019, R. S. 1894), which is as follows:
"Whoever, being charged or in any manner intrusted with the collection, receipt, safe-keeping, transfer, or disbursement of any money, funds, securities, bonds, choses in action, or other property belonging to or under the control of the State or of any State officer, or belonging to or under the control of any county, civil or school township, city, or town in this State, converts to his own use, or to the use of any other person or persons, corporation or corporations, in any manner whatever, contrary to law; or uses, by way of investment in any kind of property; or loans, either with or without interest; or deposits with any person or persons, corporation or corporations, contrary to law; or exchanges for other funds, except as allowed by law, any portion of such money, funds, securities, bonds, choses in action, or other property, is guilty of embezzlement, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the State prison not more than twenty-one years nor less than two years, fined not exceeding the value of the money or other property embezzled, and disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit for any determinate period."
The venue of the cause was, on application of appellant, changed to the court below, where a motion to quash each count in the indictment was overruled. Appellant entered a plea of not guilty, and the trial resulted in a verdict of guilty, upon which judgment was rendered.
The errors assigned call in question the sufficiency of the indictment.
It is earnestly insisted that the indictment is not sufficient for the reason that the facts set forth therein show that the money alleged to have been embezzled was not the property of Tipton county, as averred, but was the property of the county treasurer.
This contention of the appellant is based upon the theory that all the money which comes into the hands or under the control of a county treasurer is his individual property, and that he may do with it whatever he pleases; provided he pays all warrants properly drawn against any of the funds in his hands, and accounts to his successor for what may be on hand at the expiration of his term of office.
The title of the county treasurer to the money which he receives as such treasurer is only recognized to the extent necessary for the safety and better security of the funds in his hands and not for the use or benefit of the officer himself, and is in effect a legal title in a technical and very limited sense. The equitable title to and beneficiary interest in such money is in the county, and the money for which he is held liable upon his bond is really the money of the county. Rowley, Admr., v. Fair, 104 Ind. 189, 3 N.E. 860. While this was the rule prior to the enactment of section 1942 (2019), supra, as between the treasurer and the county and all other persons, the title to such money, legal and equitable, is in the county. Winchester...
To continue reading
Request your trial