The Interstate National Bank v. Ferguson
Decision Date | 11 June 1892 |
Citation | 48 Kan. 732,30 P. 237 |
Parties | THE INTERSTATE NATIONAL BANK v. J. W. FERGUSON, as Treasurer of Kansas City |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1892.
Original Proceeding in Mandamus.THE opinion herein, filed June 11, 1892, contains a sufficient statement of the case.
Defendant's demurrer overruled.
Pratt Ferry & Hagerman, for relator.
:Hutchings Keplinger & Miller, for defendant.
OPINION
This was an action of mandamus brought originally in this court by the Interstate National Bank of Kansas City, Kan., against J. W. Ferguson, the treasurer of such city, to compel him to deposit with the plaintiff all public moneys coming into his hands as city treasurer, including all moneys received by him under the provisions of § 189 of the first-class-city act. Sections 87 and 189 of the first-class-city act read as follows:
On December 26, 1891, a city ordinance of the mayor and council of said city took effect, sections 1 and 2 of which read as follows:
It is alleged by the plaintiff, among other things, as follows:
"That on December 9, 1891, the council of said city took from said Interstate National Bank a good and sufficient bond in the sum of $ 200,000, which sum was designated by said council, conditioned as provided by said section 641 of said statutes (said section 87); and it was agreed by and between the said bank and the mayor and council of said city that the said bank should pay interest on monthly average balances of such deposits at the rate of 2 per cent. per annum."
The plaintiff has complied with all the terms and conditions required of it under the statutes and the city ordinances and its contract with the city, to authorize it to receive the aforesaid moneys, provided a national bank may ever, under any circumstances, receive such moneys; but the defendant, as city treasurer, refuses to deposit with the plaintiff any such moneys; and the plaintiff, for the purpose of compelling the defendant to make such deposits, has brought this present action in this court. The defendant has demurred to the plaintiff's petition and alternative writ upon various grounds, some of which are wholly untenable and require no comment; but others demand our careful consideration. Among the points made by the defendant are the following: (1) It is claimed by the defendant that the aforesaid ordinance provides for depositing only the "funds of the city" or the "city's funds" with the plaintiff, which funds, it is claimed do not include any of the funds mentioned in § 189 of the first-class-city act. (2) It is also claimed by the defendant that the mayor and council have no control, under §§ 87 and 189 of the first-class-city act, or under any other statute or statutes, over any funds paid to the city treasurer under the provisions of said § 189, for the purpose of placing them in a bank or for any other purpose, for the following reasons: First, they are not city funds; second, they are "to be held by" the city treasurer and not by a bank; and, third, they are "subject to the order of the board of police commissioners," and not to the order of the mayor and council. (3) It is also claimed by the defendant that § 87 of the first-class-city act, so far as it provides for the depositing of any of the public money in any bank, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Texas Pac Ry Co v. Pottorff
...compare Lunt, Surety Bonds (1930), 206. 10 Nebraska v. First National Bank of Orleans (C.C.) 88 F. 947, and Interstate National Bank v. Ferguson, 48 Kan. 732, 30 P. 237, held in the case of a deposit of public funds that the practice was legal. Two Attorneys General have expressed the opini......
-
Sneeden v. City of Marion, Ill.
...bank must return the amount of the deposit before he is entitled to the return of the pledged securities; and Interstate Nat'l Bank v. Ferguson, 48 Kan. 732, 30 P. 237 (1892). Pledge of securities invalid: Carter v. Brock, 162 La. 12, 110 So. 71 (1926); Divide County v. Baird, 55 N. D. 45, ......
-
Pixton v. Perry
...269 P. 144 72 Utah 129 PIXTON, STATE BANK COMMISSIONER v. PERRY, COUNTY TREASURER No. 4672Supreme Court of ... N.W. 294; Citizens' State Bank, v. First ... National Bank, 98 Kan. 109, 157 P. 392, L.R.A. 1917A, ... 696; Maryland Casualty ... Odebolt Savings Bank, 203 Iowa ... 1335, 214 N.W. 559; Interstate National Bank v ... Ferguson, 48 Kan. 732, 30 P. 237; State v ... ...
-
Cantley v. Little River Drainage Dist.
... ... (1) A ... bank has no statutory power to prefer one class of depositors ... by pledging ... The courts of many states as well as ... the National courts, including the Supreme Court of the ... United States, have ... Bank Co. v. Nat. Surety Co., 212 P. 489; Interstate ... National Bank v. Ferguson, 48 Kan. 732; Merrill v ... Bank, 173 ... ...