Pokorny v. Wayne Cnty.
| Decision Date | 08 September 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 18.,18. |
| Parties | POKORNY v. WAYNE COUNTY et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Adolph F. Marschner, Judge.
Suit in equity by Edward Pokorny, as friend of the Wayne circuit court, against the County of Wayne and Eugene F. Black, successor to Herbert J. Rushton, as Attorney General for the state, and the State Board of Escheats, for directions to deposit in the county's general fund the amounts of unclaimed alimony payments and interest thereon in plaintiff's hands. From a decree ordering plaintiff to deposit the funds to the credit of the county's general fund, defendants Black and State Board of Escheats appeal.
Decree vacated, and decree in conformity with opinion entered.
Before the Entire Bench, except DETHMERS, J.
Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., of Lansing, and Daniel J. O'Hara, Ben H. Cole, Victor H. Meier, and Archie C. Fraser (State Public Administrator), Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellants.
James N. McNally, Pros. Atty., and J. Lynn Fewlass and Julius C. Pliskow, Asst. Pros. Attys., all of Detroit, for appellees.
This is an appeal by defendants Attorney General and the State Board of Escheats from a decree pertaining to the disposition of certain funds now held by plaintiff Edward Pokorny, a Friend of the Court of Wayne County. Pokorny filed a bill of complaint in which he stated that there was in his hands as of March 30, 1943, the sum of $11.969.92, representing unclaimed alimony deposited with him under the terms of orders theretofore entered, by the Wayne circuit court, which sum has been unclaimed by the intended recipients thereto for 10 years and upwards. This money is on deposit in a savings account in a Detroit bank. Plaintiff further informed the circuit court that he had in his hands the sum of $4,992.60 in separate account, representing interest earned upon the above mentioned funds to February 26, 1943.
On July 15, 1943, the board of supervisors of the county of Wayne adopted a resolution expressing its desire that these funds be placed by Pokorny in the county treasury to the credit of the general fund of the county. This resoultion requested plaintiff to apply to the Wayne circuit court for an order directing him to deposit in the general fund of Wayne county all interest earned upon said back deposits of alimony, except for certain items not important here, and all moneys coming into his possession which have not been claimed for a period of 6 years or more.
This resolution also provided for the situation where the moneys in question, or part of them, shall be claimed by those originally entitled thereto, and provided a method for their payment.
Pokorny's bill alleged that the board of escheats of the State of Michigan may claim that these funds should be paid to it by virtue of the statutes of the State of Michigan, and he asked that it be joined as a party defendant. The circuit court, after considering appellants' answer and the testimony of Pokorny, granted plaintiff the relief here requested and ordered him to deposit the mentioned funds to the credit of the county's general fund.
It is the first contention of the plaintiff that the funds are public moneys, and therefore, are not subjected to the escheat statutes of this State. Both sides agree that, if these funds are public moneys, then they cannot, escheat to the State. However, we are unable to find in the present instance that these funds are public moneys. Public moneys are defined by our statute as follows, being Act No. 40, Pub.Acts 1932, Ex. Sess., Stat.Ann. § 3.751:
‘All moneys which shall come into the hands of any officer of any county, ro of any township, school district, city or village, or of any other municipal or public corporation within this state, pursuant to any provision of law authorizing such officer to collect or receive the same, shall be denominated public moneys within the meaning of this act.'
Plaintiff contends that he, and these funds which he has received, fall within the definition given in the statute because, by virtue of Wayne Circuit Court Rule No. 9, subd. (a), part 1, he is an officer of the court. That he is such an officer of the court is sustained by the cited court rule, which reads:
‘All payments of alimony, temporary and permanent, shall be made payable to and shall be paid to the Friend of the Court, who shall be deputized as a Deputy Court Clerk for that purpose.'
But it still does not follow that these funds are public moneys. The distinction between public and non-public moneys is well stated in 50 C.J. p. 854, § 40, where it is said:
‘The term ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Genesee Cnty.
...fall into the hands of some governmental agent, while such agent is performing his lawful functions." Pokorny v. Wayne Co. , 322 Mich. 10, 15, 33 N.W.2d 641 (1948).3 Restitution can refer both to liabilities and to remedies, leading to misunderstanding about its correct meaning in some cont......
-
South Dakota SIF v. Homestake Mining, 20813.
...the contributors, and of which the state is merely the custodian. Id. at 595-96 (first emphasis added) (quoting Pokorny v. Wayne County, 322 Mich. 10, 33 N.W.2d 641, 642 (1948) (quoting 50 CJ Public § 40 (1930) and citing State v. Igoe, 340 Mo. 1166, 107 S.W.2d 929, 933 (1937); Allen v. Cit......
-
Theisen v. City of Dearborn
...Michigan Supreme Court has held that not all funds held by governmental officers are public moneys. The case of Pokorny v. County of Wayne (1948), 322 Mich. 10, 33 N.W.2d 641, defines public funds as funds belonging to the State or to any county or political subdivision of the State raised ......
-
Parsons v. South Dakota Lottery Com'n
...voluntarily contributed, for the sole benefit of the contributors, and of which the state is merely the custodian. Pokorny v. Wayne County, 322 Mich. 10, 33 N.W.2d 641 (1948) (quoting 50 C.J. Public Sec. 40 (1930)) (emphasis added). See also State v. Igoe, 340 Mo. 1166, 107 S.W.2d 929, 933 ......