Board of Levee Com'rs for Yazoo-Mississippi Delta v. Powell
| Citation | 68 So. 71,109 Miss. 154 |
| Decision Date | 12 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | 17602 |
| Parties | BOARD OF LEVEE COM'RS FOR YAZOO-MISSISSIPPI DELTA v. POWELL |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
APPEAL from the chancery court of Tunica county. HON. M. E. DENTON Chancellor.
Suit by the board of levee commissioners for the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta against W. H. Powell, receiver of the Bank of Tunica. From a decree sustaining a demurrer to the petition plaintiff appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Affirmed.
Gary & Rice, for appellant.
Appellant bases its claim and rights of priority on section 3 of chapter 97 of the Laws of 1908, which said section after providing the manner in which depositories must qualify for the reception of the levee board funds, adds this additional and complete sentence: "It is further provided that the creating of this additional security and the acceptance of the collateral herein before mentioned shall not be construed as waiving any rights, benefits, or privileges conferred by law upon the commission in the matter of recovering public monies or trust funds from banks in which they may be deposited." It looks like the legislature passed this law with the Potter Case before their eyes, although the Potter Case had not at that time been decided. The law goes on and creates the relation of debtor and creditor between the depositories and the levee board, as was done, so says the Potter Case, in the enactment of chapter 96 of the Laws of 1908, dealing with state depositories, and then, instead of leaving the law in this condition, as was done in chapter 96, above, it goes further and throws appellant back on the former law, and gives appellant the benefits and protections of that section, which is section 3485 of the Code of 1906 which reads as follows: "All money deposited in bank, or with any other depository, by or for a tax collector, or other officer having the custody of public funds, state, county, municipal, or levee board, whether the same be deposited in the name of the officer as an individual or as an officer, or in the name of any other person, is prima facie public money and a trust fund, and is not liable to be taken by the general creditors of the officer or by the creditors of the depository."
As to what appellant's rights to priority are under this section we cite the cases of Fogg v. Bank, 80 Miss. 750; Metcalf v. Bank, 89 Miss. 649; Bank v. Hardy, 97 Miss. 755; Green v. Cole, 98 Miss. 67.
Montgomery & Montgomery, for appellee.
Counsel for appellant, in their brief, assert that in their opinion, the whole question in this case is whether or not the funds of the levee board which were on deposit in the Bank of Tunica at the time of its failure, were protected by section 3485 of the Code of 1906, and they concede that if they are not protected by that section, that there is no other statutory law touching on the matter and that there is no protection; for, they concede, that the common law did not recognize any right to priority. They, therefore, insist that section 3485 of the Code of 1906, is controlling in this case.
Counsel further concede that if the laws governing the levee board depository were the same as govern the state depositories, they would start out with this case already decided against them, in the case of Potter v. The Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, 101 Miss. 823, and they base their claim to priority in this case upon the clause of the Act of 1908 quoted by them in their brief.
If the levee board did not have security for the money which it had on deposit in this depository, although the law provided that they should take security, then the appellant, of course, would have a prior lien for such part of its deposit as was not secured, as decided by this court in the case of Powell v. Board of Supervisors of Tunica County, 65 So. 499. But, that is not the question before the court in this appeal.
We insist that the scheme of this levee board depository law in providing for security is as follows: (1) The depository shall deposit in United States bonds, Mississippi state bonds, Yazoo-Mississippi Delta levee board bonds, bonds of a county within the levee district or bonds of a city within the levee district, to an aggregate amount of fifty per cent. of the estimated maximum amount to be kept on deposit. In other words, fiscal security to the amount of fifty per cent. of the possible deposit. (2) As further security, an indemnity bond, as in this case, with four individual sureties, to be approved by the levee board or its proper officers and that indemnity bond to be in the amount equivalent to seventy-five per cent. of the estimated amount which is to be kept on deposit. That these fiscal bonds and the indemnity bond shall stand as security to the levee board for its depository under the provision of section 3 of the Act of 1908, that the creating of this additional security and acceptance of collateral thereinbefore mentioned, shall not be construed as waiving any rights, benefits or privileges conferred by law upon the commission in the matter of recovering public moneys or trust funds in banks which they may deposit, is given as an additional protection to the board after exhausting its security, should the security for any reason be inadequate.
According to the counsel's brief, this bill is filed at the request of the sureties on the indemnity bond, though it does not appear on the face of the petition and it is not a matter to be considered by this court in the hearing of this appeal.
The petition prays that the court take over these four thousand dollars of the remaining levee board bonds and have them sold and credited on the amount of the balance due the levee board by the insolvent bank and that the levee board be given a decree fixing in its favor a prior lien upon all of the assets of this bank in the hands of the receiver for the balance. Thus absolutely releasing the bond of indemnity.
This is inequitable, unjust and unsupported by any law or any authority. Shields v. Thomas, 71 Miss. 260; Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. First State Bank of Shaw, 103 Miss. 91; Fogg v. Bank of Friars Point, 80 Miss. 750; Metcalf v. Bank, 89 Miss. 649; Commercial Bank v. Hardy, 97 Miss. 755; Green v. Cole, 98 Miss. 67. This brings us to the two later cases of Potter v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 101 Miss. 823, and Powell v. Board of Supervisors of Tunica County (Miss.), 65 So. 499.
In the Potter Case, supra, the following principles are announced: (a) In the absence of statutory or constitutional authority, the state, as sovereign, has no preferential rights in Mississippi. (b) State sovereignty is not involved when the question is one of priority merely. (c) Section 3485 of the Code of 1906, being in derrogation of the common law, is to be strictly construed against the state asserting a claim by virtue of that statute. (d) While section 3485 of the Code of 1906, was not repealed by the depository law and still stands as security for all deposits of public money made by any person whatever in case of the insolvency of the depository, where the deposit is not made by virtue of the depository law, still where the state disposes of its public funds, as required by its depository laws, the relation of debtor and creditor is established between the state and the depository merely and the state must take its money in the event of the insolvency of the depository out of its security and failing in this, must share the assets pro rata with the other creditors. (e) When funds are placed by the state in a depository as provided by the Laws of 1908, chapter 96, they are not trust funds within any meaning or purpose provided for by section 3485 of the Code of 1906.
We assert with confidence that there is no authority contravening the proposition that we are contending for, that where the levee board has deposited its money in a depository as provided by Laws of 1908, chapter 97, as amended by the Laws of 1910, chapter 225, that section 3485 of the Code of 1906, will not operate to prevent a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Village of Bassfield
... ... board of directors, he is presumed to have power of ... Powell v. Board of Sup'rs of Tunica County, 107 ... See, also, Board of ... Levee Commissioners v. Powell, 68 So. 71, and later ... ...
-
United States Fidelity Co. v. First State Bank
...existed as between the First State Bank and the County. Potter v. Guaranty Co., 101 Miss. 823, O. C. 829-830, 58 So. 713; Board of Levee Comr. v. Powell, 68 So. 71, 69 215; Guaranty Co. v. Wilkerson County, 109 Miss. 879, O. C. 888-889. Everybody concerned in the proceedings of the sale of ......
-
Webster v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
...in 1915 before the interest statute was passed, is peculiarly instructive. There, on rehearing granted after the majority had, in 109 Miss. 154, 68 So. 71, 73, denied the preference on the ground that section 3485, Code of 1906, now section 2914, Code of 1930, "is only operative to protect ......
-
Board of Levee Com'rs for Yazoo Mississippi Delta v. Powell
...sustained, decree of lower court reversed, demurrer to bill overruled and appellee granted thirty days to answer. For former opinion see 68 So. 71. reversed, demurrer overruled. Gary & Rice, for appellant. We insist that the cases of Potter v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, 101 Mis......