Naylor v. Crabbe

• Decision Date: 24 April 1915
• Docket Number: 2792
• Parties: NAYLOR, COUNTY TREASURER, v. CRABBE et al., BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

148 P. 359

45 Utah 617

NAYLOR, COUNTY TREASURER, v. CRABBE et al., BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS

No. 2792

Supreme Court of Utah

April 24, 1915

Original application for mandamus by Raymond C. Naylor, as Treasurer of Salt Lake City, against A. H. Crabbe and others as members of and comprising the Board of County Commissioners of Salt Lake County.

PROCEEDINGS DISMISSED.

J. W Thompson and Booth, Lee, Badger & Rich, for plaintiff.

H. L. Mulliner, County Attorney, for defendants.

STRAUP, C. J. FRICK and McCARTY, JJ., concur.

OPINION

STRAUP, C. J.

A demand has been made on the County Commissioners of Salt Lake County to pay, or to direct to be paid, out of funds of the county treasury, the cost or premium of the official bond of the County Treasurer. It is alleged that the official bond as fixed by law and required to be given by the Treasurer, and approved by the County Commissioners, is in the sum of $ 1,686,100, and that the annual cost or premium of the bond is $ 4,265. They refused. We, on application for a writ of mandate, are asked to direct them to so pay it.

We have a statute (chapter 105, Laws Utah 1913) which reads:

"Any public officer having public funds in his custody may deposit the same, or any part thereof, with any bank incorporated under the National Banking Act and doing business in this state, or with any bank or trust company incorporated under the laws of and engaged in business in this state: Provided, that he requires such depository to pay interest on all funds so deposited at a rate of not less than two per centum (2%) per annum, and that he take from such depository collateral security or a good and sufficient surety company bond or a personal bond approved by him and sufficient in amount to fully protect such funds: Provided, that the cost of any official bonds required to be furnished by any public Treasurer shall be paid out of funds in the respective treasurers [treasuries]: Provided, that the interest received under the provisions of this act * * * shall be placed in the general fund."

It is averred that the funds coming into the hands of the County Treasurer have been deposited with a bank as in the act provided, and that "interest will be paid upon said funds so deposited at the rate of 2 per cent. per annum, provided the premium of said bond is paid out of public moneys," that the annual interest on the deposits will be about $ 8,000, and that the interest for the first quarter, or for the months of January, February and March, 1915, amounts to the sum of $ 833, which, it is averred, "may now be available," but it is not averred that it or any sum has been "placed in the general fund," or that it even has been collected. In other respects the conditions enumerated in the statute to bring the case within the proviso requiring the cost or premium of official bonds to be paid out of funds in the treasury are alleged to have been complied with.

The petition for the writ is demurred to. The point raised by the demurrer is the validity of the act. That portion requiring the payment of the cost of the official bonds is claimed to be invalid on the ground that it is not sufficiently "expressed in the title" of the act, and as required by article 6, section 23, of the Constitution. The title of the act is:

"An act permitting any public officer having public funds in his custody to deposit same in banks within the state; requiring the collection of interest and security from depository banks."

That it is contended, does not express or indicate anything in respect of the payment of costs or premiums of official bonds, or the payment of them out of funds of the...