Board of Drainage Com'rs of McCracken County v. City Nat. Bank of Paducah, Ky.

• Decision Date: 26 November 1929
• Citation: 231 Ky. 670,22 S.W.2d 94
• Parties: BOARD OF DRAINAGE COM'RS OF McCRACKEN COUNTY et al. v. CITY NATIONAL BANK OF PADUCAH, KY.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

22 S.W.2d 94

231 Ky. 670

BOARD OF DRAINAGE COM'RS OF McCRACKEN COUNTY et al. v. CITY NATIONAL BANK OF PADUCAH, KY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

November 26, 1929

Appeal from Circuit Court, McCracken County.

Suit by the Board of Drainage Commissioners of McCracken County against the City National Bank of Paducah, Ky. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals, and defendant cross-appeals. Affirmed on original appeal, and reversed and remanded on cross-appeal.

Eaton &amp Boyd, of Paducah, for appellant.

Wheeler & Hughes, of Paducah, for appellee.

HOBSON C.

The board of drainage commissioners of McCracken county for Mayfield Creek drainage district No. 1 for many years past has kept on deposit in the City National Bank of Paducah all the moneys collected by it for the drainage district from taxes paid by the property owners in the drainage district. On the 30th day of June, 1928, the amount of these taxes on hand was $17,886.78. The bank held a note of the drainage district for $6,630.38, and also a warrant issued by it for $1,908.63, on both of which interest had accrued. The bank charged these debts to the account, leaving a balance of $8,883.99. Thereupon the board of drainage commissioners brought this suit against the bank, complaining that this charge had been made.

The debts held by the bank arose in this way: In the year 1924 the board needed money to pay for work before the taxes were collected. The bank furnished the money, and the warrant was issued to the bank, bearing interest at 6 per cent. This ran along until 1926, when some of the bonds were due and interest on other bonds had to be met. The district did not have the money on hand, and the bank furnished the money to pay these obligations, and the district executed to it the note referred to. Thus things ran along until that board went out of office. A new board came in, and it wished to withdraw from the bank the entire amount in cash, as shown on the deposit account. The bank offered to pay the balance, less the debts due it, for which it claimed a banker's lien. On final hearing the circuit court adjudged the bank, in substance, the right to hold the amount of its note, but declined to allow it to hold the amount of its warrant. From this judgment the board appeals, and the bank prosecutes a cross-appeal.

Under the statute the board is a body corporate, with like powers duties, and responsibilities within its district as the county board of drainage commissioners. See Ky. St. § 2380-21 (Acts 1912, p. 505, § 21). And by the same statute the county board is created a body corporate, ...