State ex rel. First National Bank of Crete v. Bartley
Decision Date | 20 February 1894 |
Docket Number | 6709 |
Parties | STATE OF NEBRASKA, EX REL. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CRETE, v. JOSEPH S. BARTLEY, STATE TREASURER |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ORIGINAL application for mandamus.
WRIT ALLOWED.
James W. Dawes, for relator.
W. S Summers and John H. Ames, contra.
This is an application by the relator, the First National Bank of Crete, for a peremptory writ of mandamus to Joseph S. Bartley, state treasurer, to compel respondent to deposit with relator a portion of the moneys in the state treasury according to the requirements of the act passed by the state legislature of 1891, entitled "An act to provide for the depositing of state and county funds in banks." The petition charges, in substance, that on the 9th day of January, 1894, the governor, attorney general, and secretary of state, in pursuance of the provisions of said act designated the First National Bank of Crete as a state depository, and on said day said bank executed and delivered a bond conditioned as required by said law, which bond, and the sureties thereon, were duly accepted and approved by the proper officers; that only three other banks have complied with the provisions of said act of the legislature so as to entitle them to the deposit of state funds, and that the amount of the bonds furnished by each of said other banks was, and is, $ 100,000, so that the aggregate amount which the respondent is authorized at any time to have on deposit in all of said banks pursuant to said act is $ 150,000; that respondent has refused to deposit any of the moneys now in the state treasury with the relator, although requested so to do; that respondent, at the time of such demand and refusal, stated that all the moneys belonging to the state which he is empowered by said act to deposit were already deposited in the said several banks, except moneys belonging to the following funds: sinking, relief, permanent school, temporary school, permanent university, library, agricultural college endowment, normal school endowment, temporary university, normal school interest, and saline. The petition further charges that respondent refuses to deposit in relator's bank any of the moneys belonging to either of the above enumerated funds, although the amount in his possession and belonging to any one of said funds, added to the amount on deposit by said treasurer with the said other banks, exceeds in the aggregate the sum of $ 150,000, and that the sole reason given by the respondent for his refusal to deposit in the bank of the relator any of the moneys in the above mentioned funds was, and is, that none of said moneys are "current funds" within the meaning of the said depository law. The cause was submitted on a general demurrer to the petition.
The first question in this case is one of construction to be given to the act above mentioned relating to the deposit of public moneys in banks. Was it the intention of the legislature to require all moneys coming into the state treasury to be deposited, or only a certain portion thereof? Sections 1 and 2 of said act, chapter 50, Laws of 1891, are in these words:
By section 3 each bank designated as a depository under the act is required to give a bond for the safe keeping and payment of all deposits and the accretions thereof, conditioned that it will render each month to the state treasurer a statement, in duplicate, showing the several daily balances, and the amount of state moneys held by it during the month, the amount of the accretions thereof, how credited separately, and for the payment of the deposit and the accretions accruing thereon, upon the presentation of the check of the state treasurer, and also that such depository will faithfully discharge the trust and comply with the provisions of the act. The section further provides the form of the bond, names the officer with whom the same shall be deposited, and forbids the treasurer having on deposit in any bank, at one time, moneys exceeding one-half of the penalty of the bond.
Section 4 provides:
The next section prescribes the penalty for the willful failure or refusal of the state treasurer to comply with the provisions of the act.
Counsel for the relator insists that it is the duty of the state treasurer to keep on deposit in the several banks designated as depositories all money received by him belonging to the state, while the respondent contends that the moneys belonging to what is commonly known as the "general fund," a fund created for the purpose of paying the salaries of the state officers and defraying the general expenses of the state government, are the only moneys to which the depository act applies. The principal controversy in the case is as to the meaning of the term "several current funds" as used in the section first above quoted. The decisions of the courts of other states do not aid us in our investigation. In fact, we have been unable to find a law upon the statute book of any state, relating to the deposit of public moneys in banks, precisely like our own. In most of the states having a depository law the treasurer is either required by express enactment to deposit all moneys that shall come into his hands, or else the statute specifically enumerates what funds shall be deposited in banks. Of course, the phrase "current funds," as employed in commercial transactions, has a fixed, known signification. Thus, these words as used in notes or bank checks have been frequently defined by various courts as meaning current money; lawful money; par funds, or money circulating without any discount. (See Galena Ins. Co. v. Kupfer, 28 Ill. 332; Wharton v. Morris, 1 U.S. 125, 1 L.Ed. 65; Hulbert v. Carver, 40 Barb. 245; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Allen, 11 Mich. 501; American Emigrant Co. v. Clark, 47 Iowa 671.) All will agree, we think, that the phrase "current funds" was not employed by the legislature in enacting the statute under consideration in the same sense in which that term is used in commercial dealings. The term "current funds," like many other words in our language, is susceptible of more than one meaning. Where a word is employed in a contract or statute which has different meanings, the sense in which it is used is to be gathered from the context. It is an elementary rule of construction that effect must be given, if possible, to every word, clause, and sentence of a statute. In other words, a statute must receive such construction as will make all its parts harmonize with each other and render them consistent with its general scope and object. (Follmer v. Nuckolls County, 6 Neb. 204; State v. Babcock, 21 Neb. 599, 33 N.W. 247.) If we apply the foregoing rule in the interpretation of the law under consideration, it is not a difficult task to ascertain the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. First Nat. Bank of Crete v. Bartley
... ... 8, of the constitution, and said law is inoperative as to said funds. Original application, on the relation of the First National Bank of Crete, for mandamus to Joseph S. Bartley, state treasurer. Granted. [58 N.W. 172] Jas. W. Dawes, for relator. Geo. H. Hastings, Atty. Gen., and John H. Ames, for respondent. NORVAL, C. J. This is an application by the relator, the First National Bank of Crete, for a peremptory writ of ... ...