Citizens' Bank & Security Co. v. Commissioners' Court of De Kalb County

• Citation: 209 Ala. 646,96 So. 778
• Decision Date: 03 May 1923
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 390.
• Parties: CITIZENS' BANK & SECURITY CO. v. COMMISSIONERS' COURT OF DE KALB COUNTY.
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

96 So. 778

209 Ala. 646

CITIZENS' BANK & SECURITY CO. v. COMMISSIONERS' COURT OF DE KALB COUNTY.

7 Div. 390.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 3, 1923

Rehearing Denied June 14, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.

Petition by Citizens' Bank & Security Company for mandamus to the Commissioners' Court of De Kalb County. From a judgment denying the writ, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

A. E Hawkins and Isbell & Scott, all of Ft. Payne, for appellant.

Baker &amp Baker, of Ft. Payne, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

Appellant by this mandamus proceeding seeks to have itself designated depositary of the funds of De Kalb county, Ala., by the commissioners' court of that county. The petition alleges that the petitioner, an incorporated state bank, agreed in its bids for the county funds, to pay interest at the rate of 4 1/2 per cent. on the daily balance, but that the commissioners' court accepted the bid of another bank for the payment of only 4 per cent. on the daily balance, and this proceeding is rested upon the theory that the language of the statute providing for such county depositaries (Acts 1915, p. 348), is mandatory, to the effect that the commissioners' court must accept the bid of that bank which offers the highest rate of interest on the daily balance.

It is questioned in the answer that the petitioner's bid was sufficient in form as a bid of the bank in its corporate capacity. That question, however, we lay aside without determination, and proceed to a consideration of the merits of the cause, which involve the proper construction of the provisions of the above-cited act, as we think the entire proceeding clearly discloses that the bid upon which the petitioner rests its right to relief was treated as a bid of the bank.

There is no question of abuse of discretion, or fraud, presented upon this record, but only one as to the proper construction of the act of 1915-whether or not the commissioners' court is vested with the discretion under the circumstances here presented. As has been often stated, there is no universal rule by which directory provisions in a statute may under all circumstances be distinguished from those which are mandatory. The proper construction of the language used in this act is to be determined from the consideration of the subject-matter and the relation of this particular provision to the general object intended to be secured by the act, so as to arrive at the true legislative intent. George v Board of Revenue, Mobile County, 207 Ala. 227, 92 So 269.

The portion of the act, which it is urged is mandatory, is found in section 4, providing that:

"The said board of revenue or court of county commissioners shall, from sealed bids, place the county funds, the bids being opened on the first Monday in December of each year, with such incorporated state or national bank in the several counties, as offers the highest rate of interest to the county on daily balances of bank deposits."

This section further provides that a bond be required to be executed in the sum of $50,000, or such other sum as the county commissioners or board of revenue shall fix, "having due regard to the safety of the county funds." Section 5 of the act contains the following proviso:

"Provided, however, that if the board of revenue or court of county commissioners are unable to designate any depositary for the county funds in their county by

...