Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County v. State Bank
| Decision Date | 07 February 1896 |
| Docket Number | 9732--(296) |
| Parties | BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY v. STATE BANK and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action against the State Bank, Kristian Kortgaard, Alden J. Blethen Seaver E. Olson, Anton G. Green, and John S. Nelson. From an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Smith, J overruling the demurrers of plaintiff to the separate answers of defendants Seaver E. Olson and Alden J. Blethen, plaintiff appealed. Reversed.
Order reversed.
Frank M. Nye, James A. Peterson and A. H. Nunn, for appellant.
J. F McGee and Rea, Hubachek & Healy, for respondents.
Appeal by plaintiff from an order overruling its demurrers to the separate answers of two of the defendants.
The action is against the defendant bank, as principal, and its sureties upon its bond as a depositary of county funds. The material allegations of the complaint may be summarized as follows: That the plaintiff (that is, the board of county commissioners of Hennepin county), on May 23, 1892, duly designated the defendant bank a depositary of the funds of the county, pursuant to the statute; [2] that the defendant agreed, among other things, to pay interest on all such funds deposited with it, and credit such interest on monthly balances, and hold all such funds and interest subject to draft and payment on demand; that, to secure the performance of this agreement by the bank, it, with its codefendants as sureties, executed the bond required by the statute in such cases made and provided, in the sum of $ 100,000, to the plaintiff, a copy of which bond, marked is made a part of the complaint; that the bond was duly approved by the plaintiff, and filed and recorded as required by law. The recitals and conditions of the bond are in these words:
"The condition of the above obligation is such that, whereas the above bounden, the State Bank of Minneapolis, has made application to be designated a depositary of the funds of said county, and has offered to pay interest on such funds of said county as shall be deposited with it, at the rate of one and one-half per cent. per annum upon the monthly balances of such deposits, such interest to be credited monthly to said county: Now, therefore, if the above-bounden, the State Bank of Minneapolis, upon being designated as such depositary pursuant to chapter 124 of the General Statutes of Minnesota, 1881, shall well and truly credit such interest on such monthly balances to said county, and shall well and truly hold such funds, with accrued interest, subject to draft and payment at all times on demand, and shall well and truly pay over on demand, according to law, all of such funds which shall be deposited in said bank pursuant to such designation and said chapter 124, as amended by an act of the legislature of said state approved March 3rd, 1883, entitled 'An act to amend section one of chapter one hundred and twenty-four of the General Laws of 1881, relating to the deposit of public funds,' and all of the interest so to be credited, then the above obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue."
The complaint further alleges that after such designation of the bank and the execution of the bond, and pursuant thereto, the county treasurer deposited with the bank certain public funds of the county, and on June 27, 1893, there was on deposit by the county treasurer, in the bank, pursuant to such designation and agreement, the funds of the county to the amount of $ 64,703.10; that payment thereof was duly demanded on that day, of the bank, and refused.
The answer of each defendant is the same, and contains no denials, but alleges that the board of auditors of the county of Hennepin never acted upon any application of the bank to be designated a depositary of county funds, and that the bank never was designated by such board as such depositary. The answer admits the execution of the bond, but alleges that the defendant executed it upon the express agreement that it was not to become operative until the bank was designated a depositary of county funds, and that the defendant never knew that the bond was accepted or...
To continue reading
Request your trial