Federal Deposit Ins. Corporation v. Casady
| Decision Date | 25 September 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 1833.,1833. |
| Citation | 106 F.2d 784 |
| Parties | FEDERAL DEPOSIT INS. CORPORATION v. CASADY, Town Treasurer, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
M. W. McKenzie, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (Francis C. Brown, of Washington, D. C., and Everest, McKenzie & Gibbens, of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.
W. C. Austin, of Altus, Okl. (F. R. Blosser, of Cheyenne, Okl., and Robert B. Harbison, of Altus, Okl., on the brief), for appellees.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
The First State Bank of Cheyenne, Oklahoma, having become insolvent on March 25, 1935, it was closed and taken over by the Bank Commissioner of said state for liquidation. Deposits in said bank were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Company as limited by Section 12B (a), (y), of Act of June 16, 1933, § 8, 48 Stat. 168, 179, as amended by Act of June 16, 1934, § 1, 48 Stat. 969, 12 U.S.C. A. § 264.
John C. Casady, as treasurer of the town of Cheyenne, carried five separate and distinct deposits in said bank, at all times designated and appearing on its books as separate deposits, and in each at time said bank failed the balances therein were respectively as follows:
City of Cheyenne Sinking Fund $11,752.04
City of Cheyenne Paving Fund 1,801.06
Firemen's Pension Fund 462.68
City of Cheyenne Meter Fund 131.00
Cheyenne General Fund 156.43
Said treasurer and other appropriate and necessary parties instituted this action in the district court of Roger Mills County, Oklahoma, against the bank and the Insurance Corporation and other parties defendant to recover the sum of $5,000 on the sinking fund deposit liability and the full amount of each of the other four deposits.
The case was duly removed by the Insurance Corporation to the United States Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, the court ruling that it had thereby acquired jurisdiction. Judgment having been rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, the Insurance Corporation appealed.1
Section 12B subsection (l) of the Federal Reserve Act of June 16, 1933, 48 Stat. 168, as amended by the Act of June 16, 1934, among other things provides as follows:
Sinking Funds. — Sections 26, 27, and 28, Article 10, Const. of Okla., Okl.St. Ann., impose certain limitations on bonded indebtedness, providing that a city, town, school district or county incurring any indebtedness requiring the assent of the voters thereof shall before or at the time of so doing provide for the levy and collection of an annual tax sufficient to pay interest on such indebtedness as it becomes due and also to constitute a sinking fund for the payment of the principal thereof within 25 years from the date of such contracting of the same.2
A city or town holds the legal title to the sinking fund in trust for the bondholders and judgment creditors. St. Louis-San Francisco R. R. Co. v. Blake, 10 Cir., 36 F.2d 652; Hidalgo County Road Dist. No. 1 v. Morey, 5 Cir., 74 F.2d 101; Anthony v. State, 49 Kan. 246, 30 P. 488; 44 C.J. p. 1233, Sections 4215, 4216, 4217.
That each deposit represented a fund created for a separate purpose and was so carried on the books of the bank is not controverted. Provision for separation of funds raised by taxation levies in Oklahoma is fundamentally required.3
Sections 16 and 19, Article 10, Okla.Const., Okl.St.Ann., mandatory and prohibitory in language, are self-executing. Ex parte McNaught, 23 Okl. 285, 100 P. 27, and cases therein cited.
A separate fundamental right and capacity in which the fund must be held cannot be displaced either by legislative or administrative act. Bank of Picher v. Morris, 157 Okl. 122, 11 P.2d 178; Allen v. Board of County Commissioners, 131 Okl. 41, 267 P. 860; State v. Moreland, supra; Protest of Reid, 160 Okl. 3, 15 P.2d 995.
National Surety Co. v. State, ex rel. Richards, 111 Okl. 185, 239 P. 262, and Shull v. Town of Avant, 159 Okl. 271, 15 P.2d 49, cited with reliance on part of appellant, the former involving an action on a county treasurer's bond for a breach of duty as custodian of certain municipal and township bonds, and the latter as to priorities in case of insolvency of a bank, have no application in the instant case.
Further, Dillard v. Sappington, 151 Okl. 47, 1 P.2d 748; Dempsey Oil & Gas Co. v. Citizens' National Bank, 110 Okl. 39, 235 P. 1140; State ex rel. Barnett v. Exchange Nat. Bank, 172 Okl. 361, 45 P.2d 759, also cited by appellant, have neither controlling nor persuasive application to the questions here involved as to the right or capacity in which the town treasurer held these several funds in said separate accounts.
Each of such deposits created for a separate and distinct purpose, and each carried in the bank as separate from the others, was held in a separate right and capacity.
Statutory provision has been made for investment of sinking funds.4
Sinking funds must go into the ultimate payment and liquidation of the bonds and judgments, and not be otherwise used.5
General fund warrants are payable out of the general fund and the Treasurer as such may even maintain a suit thereon against his own town for the purpose of bringing the funds back into the sinking fund by way of replenishment.6
Paving Funds. — The legislature may authorize county and municipal corporations to levy and collect assessments for local improvements upon property benefited thereby, homesteads included, without regard to a cash valuation. Section 7, Art. 10, Const. of Okla., Okl.St.Ann.
Such assessments and interest thereon, whether collected by the city or town clerk or county treasurer, are to be paid to the city or town treasurer who must keep the same in a separate special fund, not derived from general taxes,7 and in no sense a fund of the city or town, for the purpose of paying the paving bonds and interest coupons thereon, and after the payment of all bonds and interest thereon, any surplus remaining in said fund shall be used for the purpose of repairing and maintaining any improvement for which such assessments have been levied, and for no other purpose whatsoever.8
The relation between the town or city through its officers and the bondholder thus created is that of an express trust created by law in which the city is the trustee and the bondholder the cestui que trustent. Straughn v. Berry et al., 179 Okl. 364, 65 P. 2d 1203; Beggs v. Kelly, 110 Okl. 274, 238 P. 466; State ex rel. Southern Surety Co. v. Armstrong, 158 Okl. 290, 13 P.2d 198; Moroney v. State, 168 Okl. 69, 31 P.2d 926; Moore v. City of Nampa, 9 Cir., 18 F.2d 860; Brown-Crummer Inv. Co. v. Paulter, 10 Cir., 70 F.2d 184; Meyers v. City of Idaho Falls, 52 Idaho 81, 11 P.2d 626.
Such assessments shall be payable in ten (10) equal installments and "be a lien against the lots and tracts of land so assessed from the date of the ordinance levying the same, * * *."9
Section 6237, O.S.1931, 11 Okl.St.Ann. § 151, covers10 the issuance of improvement bonds, requisites and provisions — registration and payment, and stipulates that said "bonds shall in no event become a liability of the city or town issuing the same."11
Under the Oklahoma controlling decisions, the officers of the town or city, rather than the city or town itself, stand in the relation of agent to the bondholders, the town treasurer being liable to the bondholders for damages for failure to call and pay bonds, showing that the treasurer — not the town or city — is liable for any misappropriation of the fund. State ex rel. v. Armstrong, supra; Moroney v. State, supra.
Other cases supporting the Oklahoma holding are as follows: Broad v. City of Moscow, 15 Idaho 606, 99 P. 101; Steiner v. Town of Capitol Heights, 213 Ala. 539, 105 So. 682; Town of Capitol Heights v. Steiner, 211 Ala. 640, 101 So. 451, 38 A.L.R. 1264; City of Winner v. Kelley, 8 Cir., 65 F.2d 955; Moore v. City of Nampa, 9 Cir., 18 F.2d 860; Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. City of Florala, 5 Cir., 63 F.2d 195.
In Moore v. City of Nampa, supra, the court said 18 F.2d 862: "* * * it is uniformly held that in collecting money to pay for special improvements, where there is no liability against the corporation, the corporation authorities do not act as its representatives, but as special agents or instrumentalities to accomplish a public end."
In the instant case the paving fund was held by the treasurer in a separate and distinct right and capacity.
The "Firemen's Relief and Pension Fund." — As specifically provided by statute, it is derived from a state tax on fire insurance premiums, from which firemen's pensions are to be paid, and is under the control of a special board of trustees created for the special purpose.12
Said Section 6112, O.S.1931, 11 Okl.St. Ann. § 374, is in part as follows: "All moneys provided for said fund by this act shall be paid over to and received by the treasurer of the city or town for the use and benefit of the firemen's relief and pension fund * * *."
Firemen's pension and relief funds come through the State Insurance Department, and are payable not upon the order of the Town or City Trustees under Section 6645, O.S.1931, 11 Okl.St.Ann. § 1017, but of the special board,13 and disbursed only upon orders of said special board as set up by the provisions of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. JG Menihan Corp.
...as part of the usual compensatory damages. The appellee cites National Home v. Wood, 7 Cir., 81 F.2d 963, and Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Casady, 10 Cir., 106 F.2d 784, as opposed to the conclusion we have reached. The first is readily distinguishable by reason of the statute involved, 38......
-
DeLorenzo v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
...capacity or same right and therefore cannot be limited to the ten thousand dollar ($10,000.00) maximum. See Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Casady, 106 F.2d 784 (10th Cir. 1939); Phair v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 74 F.Supp. 693 (D.N.J.1947); Billings County v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 7......
-
Jones v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 84-1947
...Sec. 3.6 12 C.F.R. Secs. 330.2(c) and 330.10.7 12 U.S.C. Secs. 1817(i) and 1813(p).3 Estate relies upon Federal Deposit Ins. Corporation v. Casady, 106 F.2d 784 (10th Cir.1939) and Phair v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 74 F.Supp. 693 (D.N.J.1947) for authority that state law shoul......
-
Lynn v. City of Longview
... ... were kept on bank deposit by the city in the same account ... with other ... 120, 20 S.Ct. 44, 44 L.Ed. 96; Federal Deposit Ins. Corp ... v. Casady, 10 Cir., 106 F.2d ... ...