State ex rel. Farmers Bank v. Township Board
| Decision Date | 05 April 1915 |
| Citation | 175 S.W. 139,188 Mo.App. 266 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. FARMERS BANK, Relator, v. TOWNSHIP BOARD, et al., Respondents |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Daviess Circuit Court.--Hon. A. B. Davis, Judge.
Judgment reversed.
Leopard & Fair for relator.
Gillihan & Gillihan for respondents.
This is a proceeding by mandamus to compel the Township Board of Grand River Township, Daviess county, Missouri, to select the relator Bank as the depositary of the township road and school funds. An alternative writ was issued, but on a trial in the circuit court a peremptory writ was denied and relator appealed.
The statute (section 3803, R. S. 1909) authorizes the letting of township funds by the Township Board in same manner that county funds are let by the county court under section 3805 which reads as follows:
There are two banks in Grand River Township in which is the town of Jameson. One of these is relator, "The Farmers Bank of Jameson;" the other is "The Bank of Jameson," and it has been made a party respondent. It is easy to discover from the record that there is active competition between these banks, in a proper business way, for deposits. And it appears that on the advertisement for bids, which were to be made on the 10th of May, 1913, for the township funds each bank prepared a bid of the rate of interest it would pay and submitted it to the respondent board on that day. On opening the bids, it was found that each was in proper form and that each bidder had complied with all requirements, and that relator's bid was an offer of a higher rate of interest than the other bank offered. Nevertheless, the board accepted the latter bank's offer of a less per cent, and awarded the fund to it.
There is no substantial dispute between the parties as to the facts. They are that the banks were solvent, reputable, and trustworthy institutions, and each was owned and managed by competent and trust-worthy citizens of good reputation. The record is a concession that the funds would be safe, if deposited in either institution. The reason, given by the members of the board, why the high bid of relator was rejected and the low bid of the Bank of Jameson was accepted, was this: That the board had theretofore been always treated with much consideration by the latter bank; that it had furnished the board with a place to meet, and with heat, light and stationery; and this is really admitted in respondent's return.
But in addition, we think it apparent that other reasons existed--reasons which the law cannot countenance. The cashier of the relator asked the president of the board why it was when relator had made the highest bid, the other bank was awarded the money; that "we could give a bond for half a million dollars if you wanted it," and that "we cannot understand how you think you have treated us fairly in this matter." The president answered, that we treated you The president, himself, admitted, in his testimony, that the cashier said to him, that "he did not like to be set down on;" and that he replied, "Its no worse for us to set down on you than for you to sit down on me at the election;" but adding that "we didn't take that into consideration at all, when we considered the bids."
The respondent claims justification for its act in refusing relator's bid in the words of the proviso of the above quoted statute that the board had "the right to reject any and all bids." That proviso does give the board a discretion--it does authorize the board, in proper instances to reject...
To continue reading
Request your trial