Bresler v. State Treasurer

• Decision Date: 10 February 1886
• Citation: 26 N.W. 825,60 Mich. 40
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: BRESLER v. STATE TREASURER.

26 N.W. 825

60 Mich. 40

BRESLER v. STATE TREASURER.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 10, 1886

Mandamus.

Alfred Russell, for relator.

CAMPBELL, C.J.

The purpose of this application is to obtain payment of a balance claimed to be due relator as holder of bills of the Government Stock Bank. The charter of that bank was adopted in 1849, and amended in 1850. Under the amended act, the bank was allowed to deposit government stocks with the state treasurer, and to have bills issued to the value of the stocks, countersigned by the state treasurer. New bills could be issued on the return of old ones to the treasurer. It appears from the public documents to which relator refers that the amount of bills lawfully outstanding at any one time did not exceed a little over $100,000. During the year 1854 the stocks had been reduced by redemption and return of bills to between $30,000 and $40,000. The bank not paying its bills on demand, proceedings were had in 1855 to sell the stocks and notice was given to billholders to present their bills for redemption within a time specified. In answer to this call, relator, on March 12, 1855, presented and had proved before the treasurer $1,384.75, and received a certificate to that effect. Upon the coming in of the bills it was discovered that, by some means or other, there was in circulation an amount of between $50,000 and $60,000 beyond what there should have been, so that the proceeds of the stocks only paid 40 per cent. of the face of the bills. No judicial determination ever ascertained just how this happened, but it was practically established that the excess was caused by stealing from the treasury vault--but when, or how often, or by whom, was not known--bills which had been returned and redeemed either by reissues or by surrender of bonds. Relator has received his dividend of 40 per cent. He now has demanded the balance from the state treasurer, who has no funds applicable to that purpose, and refuses to pay. This refusal is the occasion of the present application for a mandamus.

It is extraordinary for a claimant to wait over 30 years before urging his demands, and we doubt very much whether any court would be justified in considering so stale a claim, unless where the public officers had been kept in condition to respond to it. But the ground on which relator plants himself would preclude judicial action entirely. No mandamus can issue to a state officer to compel him to perform any but some unquestionable and legally defined duty. Where a party has a right under statute to have the state treasurer pay him some definite amount, a mandamus may lie to require it. But where the...