Myers v. The Board of County Commissioners of The County of Kiowa
| Decision Date | 11 February 1899 |
| Docket Number | 10855 |
| Citation | 60 Kan. 189,56 P. 11 |
| Parties | C. W. MYERS et al. v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF KIOWA |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1899.
Error from Reno district court; F. L. MARTIN, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
Thomas B. Wall, and L. M. Day, for plaintiffs in error.
J. W Davis, for defendant in error.
On the 5th day of October, 1896, a judgment was rendered in the district court of Reno county against the plaintiffs in error, as sureties of the Bank of Greensburg, in favor of the board of county commissioners of the county of Kiowa, for the sum of $ 53,924.21. The action was founded upon a bond executed by said parties to the county in the sum of $ 100,000, the conditions of which were as follows:
"Whereas the said Bank of Greensburg, Kansas, has been designated by the board of county commissioners of said county of Kiowa state of Kansas, as a depository of the funds of the said county of Kiowa, Kansas, in accordance with an act of the legislature of the state of Kansas relating to the public money, and amendatory of section 1 of chapter 131 of the Session Laws of 1887, approved March 2, 1889, the condition of this obligation is such that if the said Bank of Greensburg, Kansas, shall at all times hereafter, so long as the said bank shall remain the depository of the said county funds, promptly pay on check or draft of the treasurer of the said county of Kiowa any and all of said county funds deposited with it, and shall on the first Monday of each month file with the county clerk a statement of the amount of money on hand during the previous month and the amount of interest accrued thereon until date, and shall faithfully and honestly and diligently perform and discharge any and all duties imposed by law upon it as such depository of the said county funds, and shall, when required, pay or deliver the money so deposited with it by said county of Kiowa, state of Kansas, to the said county of Kiowa, state of Kansas, then this obligation shall be void, or otherwise the same shall remain in full force and effect."
The defendants below objected at the trial to the introduction of any evidence under the petition upon the ground that the bond sued on was not a valid obligation, in that its conditions were not in accordance with the statute authorizing the taking of the same by the board of county commissioners. The statute reads:
"That in all counties having a population of less than 25,000 inhabitants the county treasurer shall deposit daily all public money in some responsible bank or banks located at the county-seat, to be designated by the board of county commissioners, in the name of said treasurer as such officer, which bank shall pay such interest on average daily balances as may be agreed upon by the board of county commissioners; and such bank or banks shall credit the same monthly to the account of said treasurer; and before making such deposits the said board shall take from such bank or banks a good and sufficient bond in a sum double the largest approximate amount that may be on deposit at any one time, conditioned that such deposits shall be promptly paid on the check or draft of the treasurer of said county; and such bank or banks shall on the first Monday of each month file with the county clerk a statement of the amount of money on hand at the close of business each day during the previous month, and the amount of interest accrued thereon to said date." (Laws of 1889, ch. 189; Gen. Stat. 1889, P 1725.)
This law provides that the county treasurer shall deposit daily in the designated bank all public money, and that the bond shall be conditioned that such deposits shall be promptly paid on the check or draft of said treasurer. The contention of the sureties is that, the bond being conditioned for the prompt payment by the bank of county funds only, there is such a departure from the statute that the obligation is void; that the words "county funds" in the bond mean such moneys as properly belong to the county, in contradistinction to the funds of the state, township, school districts, etc.; and that a surety, being favored in law, cannot be held beyond the exact terms of his contract.
We do not think the position taken by the plaintiffs in error is well founded. The words "public money" used in said section of the statute and the expression "county funds" employed in the bond seem to us to be convertible terms. The funds of a county are the moneys and securities in the possession of the county treasurer. In the statute relating to the quarterly examination of the funds in the hands of the county treasurer, the words "funds of the county" are used to mean all of the moneys in the treasury. (Gen. Stat. 1889, PP 1708, 1709; Gen. Stat. 1897 ch. 27, §§ 113,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henry County v. Salmon
...78 N.W. 113; People v. Shepard, 55 N.Y.S. 1130; Board of Commissioners of Redwood County v. Citizens' Bank (Minn.), 69 N.W. 912; Myers v. Board, 56 P. 11; Brown v. Board, 58 Kan. 72. (8) The act county depositaries contemplated the use of checks and credits, in the usual and ordinary manner......
-
Lawrence v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y.
...34 S.W.(2d) 808;State v. McGraw, 74 Mont. 152, 240 P. 812;Spratley v. Board of Com'rs, 56 Kan. 272, 43 P. 232;Myers v. Board of Com'rs of Kiowa County, 60 Kan. 189, 56 P. 11. Contra: State v. Crook County Bank, 104 Or. 495, 208 P. 749. Were the funds represented by outstanding checks state ......
-
Washington County v. Weiser National Bank
... ... the meaning of the depository act. ( Spartley v ... Board, 56 Kan. 272, 43 P. 232; Thatcher v. County ... Commrs., 13 Kan. 182; Myers v. Board, 60 Kan ... 189, 56 P. 11; Commissioners v. Craft, 6 Kan ... Board , 56 Kan. 272, 43 P ... 232. The county treasurer of Kiowa county kept separate ... accounts with the various townships, school ... ...
-
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of State
...of the moneys and securities in the possession of the county treasurer. In Spratley v. Board, 56 Kan. 272, 43 P. 232, relied upon in Myers v. Board, supra, the question was raised as to whether the county was authorized to deposit funds which had been deposited with him by certain railroad ......