State v. Claypool
| Decision Date | 23 January 1934 |
| Citation | 145 Or. 615,28 P.2d 882 |
| Parties | STATE v. CLAYPOOL, County Treasurer, et al. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Crook County; Calvin L. Sweek, Judge.
Action by the State against Helen C. Claypool, County Treasurer of Crook County, and the Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company, a corporation. Judgment for plaintiff, and the Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company appeals.
Affirmed.
James L. Conley, of Portland, for appellants.
Lake M Bechtell, Dist. Atty., of Prineville, for respondent.
This is an action brought by the state to recover upon an undertaking given pursuant to section 27-1724, Oregon Code 1930, by Helen C. Claypool, as county treasurer of Crook county, Or., and the Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company, as surety. The case was tried to the court without a jury, and, from a judgment in favor of the state, the surety has appealed.
The undertaking was executed on December 29, 1928. It recited that the defendant Claypool had been duly elected as county treasurer for the term of four years from January 7, 1929, and contained a condition that, if she should faithfully perform and discharge all the duties of her said office for and during said term, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect. It also contained the further condition in accordance with the provisions of section 27-603, Oregon Code 1930, that the surety shall not be liable for the payment of any losses sustained by the failure of any depository in which public moneys are now or may be deposited by said principal. It also provided that the surety could cancel the undertaking upon the giving of thirty days' notice and complying with certain specified particulars. The court found that the Prineville National Bank of Prineville, Or., became insolvent on September 1, 1931, and that there was then on deposit subject to check, the sum of $16,923.25 of moneys that had come into the hands of the treasurer by virtue of her office. It also found that the treasurer had in her custody and possession certain securities which had been deposited with her by said bank as security for the payment of the moneys so deposited with it. The face value of said securities was $14,036.49, but the market value of the same was not proven or found by the court. At the time of the trial, certain sums of money had been received upon said securities by the county treasurer, so that the amount owing by the bank upon said account at the time the judgment was entered had been reduced to the sum of $11,238.64. The court also found that, in addition to said sum, there was certain interest charges that had accrued upon said account, after the failure of the bank and included said sums in the amount of the judgment.
Section 27-603, Oregon Code 1930, provides that the county treasurer shall not be liable personally upon his official bond for any moneys that may be lost by reason of the failure or insolvency of any bank which becomes a depository under the act, and, since the statute authorized the inclusion of that provision in the undertaking, the state cannot recover for these moneys if the bank at the time of the deposit was a depository within the meaning of the statute. However, the learned trial court found that the bank had never qualified itself so as to become a depository bank within the meaning of this statute, and that the bank had expressly denied that it was a depository. This finding is binding upon this court if there was any substantial evidence to support it. We think that the evidence offered clearly support the finding, and that the bank had expressly refused to become a depository in order that it should not be liable for interest charges which would have been payable if it was a depository.
Under section 27-602, Oregon Code 1930, it is made the duty of the county treasurer to deposit and keep on deposit in the county depositories provided for in the preceding section all the moneys of the county and all other funds coming into his hands. Section 27-601 makes it the duty of a county treasurer, on the first Monday in June of each year, to designate such banks and trust companies within his county as have, under the provisions of the act, become eligible county depositories to receive on deposit the funds of the county and all other funds in custody of the treasurer, and the provides the manner in which such banks and trust companies shall qualify. They are required, on or before the first Monday in June of each year, to file an application in writing with the county treasurer, accompanied with a sworn statement of the financial condition of the bank or trust company at the time the application is made. And it is made the duty of the county treasurer at said time to pass upon the application, to place his stamp thereon, with the word "approved" or "rejected," and to sign the same, after which it is his duty to transmit the application to the district attorney, together with all securities offered for the protection of such funds. Upon receipt of the application by the district attorney, it is his duty to pass upon the same and advise the county treasurer as to the legality of the same.
The statute further provides that, before the application can be approved, it must be accompanied either by a depository bond, secured by a duly qualified surety company, guaranteeing the amount of deposits applied for in said application, or by other securities that may be approved by the county treasurer, and no securities shall be approved unless their market value shall equal the amount of the deposit applied for by the bank.
None of these steps were ever taken, and, so far as the evidence in this case shows, the Prineville National Bank was not a depository within the meaning of the act. It is true, as above stated, that certain securities had been at some time deposited by the bank with the county treasurer and she had some of them in her possession at the time the bank failed which she later applied in partial satisfaction of the amount owing by the bank at the time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Casper v. Joyce
... ... Joyce, as ... Treasurer, had been examined for his term of office, ending ... January 7, 1932, and that the State Examiner had found all ... monies properly accounted for by Mr. Joyce and also that ... defendant, Central Surety and Insurance Corporation, had ... Johnson, 20 S.W.2d 22. City of Scottsbluff v ... Southern Surety Co. (Nebr.) 246 N.W. 346. State v ... Claypool, 28 P.2d 882. Roberts County v. Wickard (S ... D.) 221 N.W. 246. City of Luverne v. Skyberg ... (Minn.) 211 N.W. 5. Common School Dist. No ... ...
-
Oregon State Highway Commission v. DeLong Corp.
...entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee if he recovers more than the tender.' 248 Or. at 643--644, 436 P.2d at 553. In State v. Claypool, 145 Or. 615, 28 P.2d 882 (1934), the court, in holding that the filing of the complaint was itself a sufficient demand where the contract did not require......
-
Grijalva v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America
...965 [93 S.Ct. 2142, 36 L.Ed.2d 684] (1972) [1973], rev. [sic] den. 412 U.S. 944 [93 S.Ct. 2771, 37 L.Ed.2d 405] (1973); State v. Claypool, 145 Or. 615, 28 P.2d 882 (1934). Here, plaintiff's amended complaint that included the claim on the disability policy was filed in August, 1988. Defenda......
-
Esselstyn v. Casteel
...fee from the surety company, ORS 736.325, there is no similar liability of the defendant Mrs. Casteel. Plaintiff cites State v. Claypool, 145 Or. 615, 621-623, 28 P.2d 882, in which we approved an allowance of an attorney's fee against a county treasurer and her surety, but in that case the......