Blalock v. State

• Decision Date: 18 May 1928
• Docket Number: 6503.
• Citation: 143 S.E. 426,166 Ga. 465
• Parties: BLALOCK et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

143 S.E. 426

166 Ga. 465

BLALOCK et al. v. STATE.

No. 6503.

Supreme Court of Georgia

May 18, 1928

Syllabus by the Court.

Deposits of the public funds of the county of Fayette in the Bank of Fayetteville as "the depository and disbursing agent" of said funds under the act of 1915 (Acts 1915 p. 233), creating a depository and disbursing agent of the public funds of the county, were general deposits, title to which became vested in such bank upon being deposited; and neither the depository nor its officers can be indicted for embezzlement of such funds as the property of the county.

Certified Questions from Court of Appeals.

A. O Blalock and others were indicted for embezzlement. Demurrer to indictment was overruled, and defendants bring error. On certified questions from Court of Appeals. Questions answered.

W. B Hollingsworth and F. A. Sams, both of Fayetteville, Little, Powell, Smith & Goldstein and Alexander, Hardwick & McLarty, all of Atlanta, and J. H. Longino, of Fairburn, for plaintiffs in error.

E. M. Owen, Sol. Gen., of Griffin, for the State.

HINES J.

1. By the act of August 16, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 233), the office of county treasurer of Fayette county was abolished. By the authority vested in them by that act, the county commissioners of that county selected the Bank of Fayetteville "as depository and disbursing agent *** of the public funds of said county." By the first question propounded the Court of Appeals wishes this court to answer the question whether, under a proper construction of the above act, the public funds of said county, which were deposited in said bank as such depository and disbursing agent thereof, were general deposits subject to the general rule that a general deposit becomes the property of the bank in which it is deposited, and that the officials of the bank cannot be convicted of embezzling such funds as the property of the county; or was it the intent of the General Assembly to make such deposits by the county special deposits, or general deposits impressed with a trust, so as to take such deposits out of the general rule stated above and make them subject to embezzlement as the property of the county?

In the interpretation of a statute the courts must look diligently for the intention of the General Assembly. Penal Code, § 1. This is the cardinal rule in the construction of statutes, and the intention, when ascertained, must be carried into effect. Erwin v. Moore, 15 Ga. 361. The construction must square with common sense and sound reasoning. Now what is the meaning of this act? A synopsis of its terms will aid us in reaching its meaning. By its first section the office of the county treasurer of Fayette county was abolished from and after January 1, 1917. By the second section, it was made the duty of the county commissioners to "select some bank, banks, or bankers in said county to act as depository or depositories and disbursing agent or agents of and for the public funds of said county." By the third section it was provided that:

"Such depository or depositories, and disbursing agent, or agents, shall receive no compensation for acting as such, but said commissioners shall, if possible, get such bank, banks, or bankers to pay said county for the privilege of acting as such depository and disbursing agent."

By section 4, no bank shall be allowed to act as such depository and disbursing agent, until it shall have given a bond, with sureties, in a sum which, in the judgment of the commissioners, will be double the amount of the county funds which will be deposited with such bank or bankers for the ensuing twelve months from the date of the bond. The property of said bank or bankers and that of the securities on such bond shall be bound from the time of its execution for the payment of any liability from its breach. Besides, the commissioners were empowered to call upon said bank to strengthen its bond, or to give a new bond, and in default thereof to revoke the appointment of such bank as such depository and disbursing agent. By section 5 it is made the duty of said bank, acting as such depository and disbursing agent, (a) to pay without delay, when in funds, all orders issued by said commissioners or by their authority, according to their dates; (b) to take a receipt on each order when paid, and carefully file it away; (c) to keep a well-bound book in which shall be entered all receipts, stating when, from whom, and on what account received; and all amounts paid out, stating when, to whom, and on what account paid; (d) to keep a well-bound book in which shall be entered a full description of all county orders, or other forms of indebtedness, as they are presented, and to record a copy of the order of the county authorities levying county taxes; and (e) to render reports to, and appear before, said commissioners whenever notified, and to appear before any grand jury on request to render an account of its actings and doings as such depository and disbursing agent, and to exhibit its books and vouchers as such depository and disbursing agent whenever notified. By section 6 the commissioners are given "the power and authority from time to time to prescribe other reasonable duties and regulations for the government of said depositories and disbursing agents, and said depositories and disbursing agents shall be just as much bound to observe the same as they are bound to observe those provided for in this act." By section 7 it is provided:

"That said commissioners shall appoint such depository and disbursing agent, or depositories and disbursing agents, and such bond *** shall be given on or before the day this act shall go into effect, and the county treasurer of said county then in office shall, on the day this act shall go into effect, deliver to such depository or depositories as he may be directed by said commissioners, all county funds then in his hands."

Section 10 declares that:

"All said depositories and disbursing agents shall be liable both civilly and criminally just as county treasurers are liable, for any nonfeasance or malfeasance of duty, and said commissioners shall have the right to proceed against such depositories and disbursing agents and the securities on their bonds, as county treasurers and the securities on their bonds may now be proceeded against in case of nonfeasance or malfeasance in the conduct of their office."

Under the provisions of this act, what is the character of the deposits of the public funds of the county in such depository? Depositories of public moneys "are instruments or agencies to keep the public funds. They are sui generis and sui juris, and stand on their own law" that is, the law by which they are created. Colquitt v. Simpson, 72 Ga. 501 (3), 509. Furthermore, in answering this question, we must keep in mind the definitions of the different classes of deposits. In this state deposits are general, special, or specific; the latter being a distinct class of deposits. A general deposit is a deposit generally to the credit of the depositor, to be drawn upon by him in the usual course of the banking business. The obligation of the bank is to pay on demand or on the check or order of the depositor, but not to keep or return the specific bills or coins received. A special deposit is the delivery of property, securities, or money to the bank or depository, for the purpose of having the same safely kept, and the identical thing deposited returned to the depositor. The third class of deposits is where money or property is delivered to a bank or depository for some particular designated purpose, as a note for collection, money to pay a particular note or draft, or like purpose. While such a deposit is sometimes termed a special deposit, and partakes of the nature of a special deposit to the extent that the title remains in the depositor and does not pass to the bank or depository, yet it seems more accurate to treat such deposits as a distinct class. Southern Exchange Bank v. Pope, 152 Ga. 162, 165, 108 S.E. 551; Williams v. Bennett, 158 Ga. 488, 493, 123 S.E. 683 et seq. So we must determine the character of these deposits from the...