Stanley v. Fiscal Court, Hopkins County

• Decision Date: 15 February 1921
• Parties: STANLEY v. FISCAL COURT, HOPKINS COUNTY.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

227 S.W. 813

190 Ky. 495

STANLEY v. FISCAL COURT, HOPKINS COUNTY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 15, 1921

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hopkins County.

Suit by J. B. Stanley against the Fiscal Court, Hopkins County. Petition dismissed, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

See also, 189 Ky. 390, 224 S.W. 1081.

J. F Gordon and H. F. S. Bailey, both of Madisonville, for appellant.

Letcher R. Fox and Chas. G. Franklin, both of Madisonville, for appellee.

CLAY J.

At its April term, 1917, the fiscal court of Hopkins county elected J. B. Stanley county treasurer for a period of four years. Thereupon he qualified by appearing in open court, taking the necessary oath, and executing the bond required by law. Thereafter, from time to time, he made regular settlements in the fiscal court, and paid over to the proper persons all the money coming to his hands as treasurer. These settlements were all approved by the fiscal court. On October 14, 1919 the fiscal court entered an order, directing Stanley as county treasurer to deposit all county funds in the Hopkins County Bank at Madisonville. Stanley refused to comply with this order because there was no statute giving the fiscal court the authority to determine where the deposits should be placed. On November 15, 1919, an order was entered by the fiscal court, commanding Stanley to appear on the 28th day of that month and show cause, if any, why he should not be removed from office because of his failure and refusal to deposit the funds in the Hopkins County Bank, and because of his failure to file with the judge of the Hopkins county court, within five days after such payments were made, a report in writing of each payment of money made to him as such treasurer, showing when and from whom the same was received and on what account. In obedience to this summons Stanley appeared before the fiscal court on November 28th and filed a written response to the effect that he had deposited the funds of the county in a solvent institution, and that the fiscal court had no power or authority to direct him where he should keep his deposits. He further stated that in each year since he had been county treasurer, the fiscal court had appointed a commissioner to make settlements with him as county treasurer, and said settlements had been made. The settlements so made showed the amounts of all funds that came to his hands as treasurer, and from whom received and to what fund they belonged; also all sums paid out, to whom paid, the amounts thereof, and the purpose for which the payments were made. These settlements were properly filed with the court by the commissioner and laid over for exceptions. No exceptions of any kind were ever filed to any of the settlements, and each and all of the settlements were approved by the court as being true and correct. Furthermore, he had properly accounted for every cent that had come to his hands as treasurer, and had promptly paid all orders of the fiscal court when presented to him for payment when he had funds with which to do so. He further alleged that no treasurer of Hopkins county had ever reported to the county judge in writing the sums that had come to his hands, and that it had never been the practice or custom to do so; that soon after the present county judge came into office, he inquired of the county judge if he desired that the respondent should make the written reports to him, and the county judge had said that it was not necessary to do so; that prior to the issuing of the rule against him the county judge had never requested the respondent, or made known to him, that he desired the written reports to be made; that, acting in good faith and following along the established precedent and custom of other treasurers in not making such reports to the judge, and acting upon statement of the county judge that...