State Ex Rel. People's Bank & Trust Co. of Las Vegas v. York

• Citation: 24 N.M. 643,175 P. 769
• Decision Date: 11 October 1918
• Docket Number: No. 2158.,2158.
• Court: Supreme Court of New Mexico
• Parties: STATE ex rel. PEOPLE'S BANK & TRUST CO. OF LAS VEGASv.YORK et al.

24 N.M. 643

175 P. 769

STATE ex rel. PEOPLE'S BANK & TRUST CO. OF LAS VEGAS

v.YORK et al.

No. 2158.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Oct. 11, 1918.

Syllabus by the Court.

In the construction of a statute, in order to determine the true intention of the Legislature, the particular clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts.

Held, that the Legislature by its amendatory act, appearing as chapter 70, Laws 1917, amending the Public Moneys Bill, appearing as chapter 57, Laws 1915, intended to provide that public moneys deposited with banks or trust companies under the provisions of the said act should be equitably distributed between all such banks and trust companies within the county upon the basis of the relative capital stock and surplus of said banks.

Appeal from District Court, San Miguel County; Leahy, Judge.

Mandamus by the State, on the relation of the People's Bank & Trust Company of Las Vegas, against John H. York and others, members of the Board of County Commissioners and ex officio County Board of Finance of the County of San Miguel. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and cause remanded, with instructions.

This is an action in mandamus, brought by the People's Bank & Trust Company of Las Vegas, N. M., against the board of county commissioners, acting as the county board of finance, of the county of San Miguel. The petition set up that the relator is a corporation having its place of business in the city of Las Vegas, and is authorized under the laws of New Mexico to receive on deposit public moneys of the county of San Miguel; that the relator, with other banks named in the petition, all being authorized under the law to receive on deposit public moneys of the said county, filed with the said board of finance certain proposals under the provisions of chapter 57, Laws 1915, agreeing to pay interest on daily balances of public funds deposited with them at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum, and further agreeing to furnish a bond as provided by law; that the respondents, sitting as a board of finance, after receipt of the several proposals referred to, passed the following resolution, to wit:

“Be it resolved by the board of finance of the county of San Miguel and state of New Mexico that the following named banks be and they are hereby designated as depositories of the moneys of the county of San Miguel upon qualifying therefor in the manner provided by law in the following proportions, to wit: People's Bank & Trust Company of Las Vegas, New Mexico, up to the sum of $5,000.00; San Miguel National Bank of Las Vegas, New Mexico, up to the sum of $15,000.00; and, the First National Bank of Las Vegas, New Mexico, up to the sum of $70,000.00. And, be it resolved that the clerk of this board give to the said banks due notice of this resolution.”

It is further alleged by the petition of relator that it was the duty of the board of finance to fix the bonds of said banks and trust companies and to direct the county treasurer to deposit funds in said banks upon their qualifying as such in an equitable manner and upon the basis of the relative capital stock and surplus of said banks, the proportion to which each bank would be entitled, based upon the capital stock and surplus thereof, being set out in said petition. The petition further continues, and alleges that the said board of finance refused to consider such proposals of the relator, and failed and still fails and refuses to consider the same, and declares that in its discretion it might discriminate against any bank authorized to receive the public moneys of the county of San Miguel and designate as depository of such moneys one or more banks in any amounts in its discretion, and refuse without cause to designate any other bank as a depository, or, if it did designate a bank or trust company as a depository, it might, in its discretion, fix the amount to be deposited in each of said banks and trust companies, regardless of the relative capital stock and surplus of said institution so applying for funds. The petition concludes with the usual prayer for relief.

The respondents appeared in answer to the petition, contending that the board of finance could designate the different banks and trust companies filing proposals to be named county depositories as a depository of the public moneys, and could fix the amount to be deposited with said banks and trust companies in any amount not exceeding 75 per cent. of the capital and surplus of said bank, in the discretion of said county board of finance. Upon submission of this issue, the trial court dismissed the alternative writ, therefore finding for the respondents, and rendering judgment accordingly, from which judgment this appeal has been prayed.

In the construction of a statute, in order to determine the true intention of the legislature, the particular clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts.

George H. Hunker, of Las Vegas, for appellant.

Chester A. Hunker, of Las Vegas, for appellees.

HANNA, C. J.

While there are several assignments of error, they present but one question, which is whether or not the board of county commissioners, sitting as a board of finance, in the designation of depositories for public funds, can exercise its judgment as to the proper depositories, and as to the amount for which each shall be allowed to qualify, or whether it must...