Jarvis v. Hammons

• Decision Date: 11 July 1927
• Docket Number: Civil 2626
• Citation: 257 P. 985,32 Ariz. 318
• Parties: GEORGE JARVIS, Treasurer of the County of Apache, State of Arizona, Who Sues for the Use and Benefit of the County of Apache, State of Arizona, Appellant, v. A. T. HAMMONS, State Superintendent of Banks Acting as Receiver of the Bank of Winslow of Winslow, Arizona, an Insolvent Banking Corporation, Appellee
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

257 P. 985

32 Ariz. 318

GEORGE JARVIS, Treasurer of the County of Apache, State of Arizona, Who Sues for the Use and Benefit of the County of Apache, State of Arizona, Appellant, v. A. T. HAMMONS, State Superintendent of Banks Acting as Receiver of the Bank of Winslow of Winslow, Arizona, an Insolvent Banking Corporation, Appellee

Civil No. 2626

Supreme Court of Arizona

July 11, 1927

On rehearing of appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Navajo. J. E. Crosby, Judge. Original opinion modified.

For former opinion, see ante, p. 124, 256 P. 362.

Mr Levi S. Udall, County Attorney, and Mr. Maurice Barth, and Mr. Isaac Barth, Special Counsel, for Appellant.

Messrs Sapp & McLaughlin, for Appellee.

OPINION

LOCKWOOD, J.

Appellant in the above-entitled action has presented a petition for rehearing wherein he urges that the court erred in holding the registered warrants of the various school districts of Apache county were not an indebtedness of the county rather than the districts. He also requests that we make more definite and certain our holding in regard to the character of the moneys held by the county treasurer to the credit of the various school districts, claiming that the conclusion may be, and in one case has already been drawn from our opinion that they are not public moneys of Apache county.

On examining the question more carefully, we have come to the conclusion that we erred in holding that the registered warrants of the school districts of Apache county are not an indebtedness or obligation of the county. As was said in the case of National Surety Co. v. Richards, 111 Okl. 185, 239 P. 262, under statutes which are to a great extent like ours in their effect:

"The treasurer, by virtue of his office, is the collector of the various classes of taxes to be collected and becomes custodian of such tax money. . . . When the money comes into the hands of the custodian, the school districts are not entitled to the specific money, and have no control over it. The school district is simply entitled to a credit upon the county's books, kept by its financial representative, the county treasurer; and the relationship thereafter as between the county and the school district is that of debtor and creditor; and the treasurer becomes not only the custodian and keeper for the debtor, but is also the disbursing officer, and it matters not what is done with the money by him, the credit remains. . . .

"The various organizations within the county for whose benefit taxes are collected by the county treasurer, hold the same relation to the county that depositors hold to their bank. The money deposited loses its identity, and the bank becomes debtor to the depositor. . . . The county, through its county treasurer as receiving and disbursing officer, is the official banker and depository of the school districts. They have their credit with their banker, the county, presided over by the treasurer. . . . Such cashier, the treasurer, and his surety, are answerable to the board of directors, the county commissioners. . . . When any of the taxes are impropery disposed of. . . . If it is school money which is missing, it is the loss of the county, . . . and...