The First National Bank of Medicine Lodge v. Peck

• Decision Date: 10 May 1890
• Citation: 23 P. 1077,43 Kan. 643
• Parties: THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MEDICINE LODGE v. E. B. PECK, as County Treasurer of Barber County
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

23 P. 1077

43 Kan. 643

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MEDICINE LODGE v. E. B. PECK, as County Treasurer of Barber County

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 10, 1890

February 15, 1890; January, 1890, Decided

Original Proceeding in Mandamus.

PETITION filed in this court on February 15, 1890. The facts are sufficiently set forth in the opinion, filed on May 10, 1890.

Writ of mandamus denied.

Sluss & Stanley, Mansfield, Eaton & Pollock, E. Sample, and Chester I. Long, for plaintiff.

R. A Cameron, county attorney, for defendant; A. J. Jones, of counsel.

JOHNSTON J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, J.:

In the alternative writ of mandamus heretofore allowed, it is stated that on November 10, 1888, the board of county commissioners of Barber county, Kansas, designated the First National Bank of Medicine Lodge as the bank in which to deposit the public moneys of Barber county, and required the bank to execute a bond in the sum of $ 100,000, and also to pay two per cent. per annum on the average daily balances of the deposit, and to credit the same monthly to the account of the county treasurer. This bond was executed by the bank and accepted by the county board; and the county treasurer thereafter, in compliance with the order, deposited the public moneys with the plaintiff, and the bank paid interest on the average daily balances, as required by the designation, until the 1st day of January, 1890. On the 8th day of November, 1889, the board of county commissioners entered an order designating the bank as the place of deposit for all public moneys for a period of three years next succeeding January 1, 1890, and the bank was required to give a bond in the sum of $ 100,000, and to pay two per cent. per annum on the average daily balances of the deposit. The bond was executed in behalf of the bank on the same day, which was approved by the county board, and it is alleged that from the 1st day of January, 1890, until the 13th day of February, 1890, the bank continued to allow interest on the deposit made by the county treasurer at the rate of two per cent. per annum. On the 15th day of January, 1890, an order was made by the board of county commissioners, directing the county treasurer to immediately withdraw from the First National Bank all the moneys in the bank belonging to the county, and place the same in the vault in the office of the county treasurer until the further order of the board. Afterward, on February 13, 1890, the board of county commissioners, at an adjourned meeting, designated the Citizens' National Bank of Medicine Lodge as the depository of public moneys, and required that the bank give a bond in the sum of $ 125,000, and to pay five per cent. per annum on the average daily deposits; and directed the county treasurer to withdraw all the public funds from the First National Bank and deposit the same in the Citizens' National Bank. This designation was to remain in force only until the further order of the county commissioners. In pursuance of this order, the county treasurer demanded from the First National Bank the funds in its possession, with a view of depositing them in the Citizens' National Bank, and $ 10,000 of the public moneys were given to the county treasurer, under protest, in obedience to his demand; and the county treasurer is insisting on the balance of the moneys in the hands of the plaintiff, for the purpose of placing the same on deposit with the other bank. The county treasurer has ceased, and now refuses, to deposit the public moneys of the county of Barber with the plaintiff, and this proceeding is brought to compel him to deposit all public moneys that may come into his hands as treasurer of the county, or that are now in his hands, with the plaintiff, and also to withdraw from the Citizens' National Bank all moneys which he deposited there as treasurer of the county, and place the same on deposit with the plaintiff, in compliance with the order of November 8, 1889. It is further stated in the writ that the bank is solvent, has executed a sufficient bond, and that no reason exists for believing that the bank is not a proper and safe depository for the public funds of the county.

The defendant moves to quash the alternative writ on the ground that the facts stated are insufficient to...