Wright County ex rel. Elk Creek Tp. v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank
| Decision Date | 03 July 1930 |
| Docket Number | 28971 |
| Citation | 30 S.W.2d 32 |
| Parties | WRIGHT COUNTY ex rel. ELK CREEK TP. v. FARMERS' & MERCHANTS' BANK et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
C. H Jackson, of Mountain Grove, and Farrington & Curtis, of Springfield, for appellants.
N. J Craig, of Mansfield, and Arch A. Johnson, of Springfield, for respondent.
This is an action by a county, at the relation of a township against the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank and the sureties on a county depositary bond alleged to have been executed in the penal sum of $ 15,000 to Wright county in this state. A jury was waived, and the court, upon a hearing, rendered judgment in plaintiff's favor for $ 1,591.57, principal and interest. Defendants appealed.
The evidence adduced in behalf of plaintiff warrants the finding that Elk Creek township is a subdivision of Wright county. In May, 1925, pursuant to notices published and bids received, the county court of Wright county declared that the People's State Bank and the Wright County Bank, both located in Hartville, the county seat of Wright county, were the selected depositaries of the county funds for the two years next ensuing. Bonds were given and approved. On June 25, 1925, the People's State Bank failed, and continued in liquidation by the state finance department until the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank, organized by agreement with the finance department for that purpose, on December 12, 1925, acquired the assets of the People's State Bank and assumed its liabilities. Upon the organization and the doing of business by the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank, it took and there was transferred to it under the agreement a deposit of more than $ 1,800, which Elk Creek township had on deposit in the People's State Bank at the time of its failure.
On December 7, 1925, the county court of Wright county made an order designating the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank as county depositary for one-half the funds of the county, without fixing the duration of time in its order; the bond was fixed at $ 15,000. The defendants signed the bond sued on, which was approved January 5, 1926. The bond expired May 12, 1927. It was admitted that no notice was given of the selection of the depositary or the letting of the funds, although there were eight other banks located in Wright county, and that no written bid was actually submitted by the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank. The funds of the county were thereafter kept in the Wright County Bank and the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank. On May 15, 1926, the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank failed and was liquidated by the finance commissioner. At the time of the closing of the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank, Elk Creek township had on deposit in said bank the sum of $ 2,641.31. This sum was afterwards reduced by the payment of dividends to $ 1,452.72, and that amount, with interest, is involved in this action.
On January 16, 1926, the board of Elk Creek township made an order to advertise for bids on its funds relative to a township depositary, for a term commencing March 1, 1926. This order fixed March 5, 1926, as the last day for receiving bids. The notice was published for days. Three banking institutions filed bids, among them the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank. On March 5, 1926, the board met and by order selected and appointed the Bank of Competition, located in Laclede county, adjacent to Wright county, as the depositary of Elk Creek township. Other pertinent facts, if any, will be adverted to in the opinion.
I. The amount involved, $ 1,591.57, is insufficient to vest jurisdiction in this court. However, we have held that the County Depositary Act (section 9582 et seq., R. S. 1919) relates to the revenue, and, as it becomes necessary to construe certain of the said statutes (revenue laws) found within the said County Depositary Act in determining the issues, the construction of the revenue laws is involved, and consequently this court is invested with appellate jurisdiction. State ex rel. v. Adkins, 221 Mo. 112, 119 S.W. 1091. Moreover, an organized township, in a county under township organization, is a political subdivision of the state under section 12, art. VI, of the Constitution. Drainage Dist. v. Trail Creek Tp., 317 Mo. 933, 941, 297 S.W. 1. This also gives us jurisdiction.
II. The record develops that Wright county operated under township organization. A portion of section 9586, Revised Statutes 1919, reads: 'Provided, that in counties under township organization it shall be the duty of the township trustee to deposit all school taxes received by him with the depository selected by the township board of his township as the depository of the township funds: Provided, that in default of the selection of a depository by the township board, and during the time when any township shall have no depository of its funds, the township trustee shall deposit all school taxes and all township funds received by him in any county depository within said township, if there be one; if not, then in the county depository most convenient to said township, and such county depository shall thereupon pay to the township the same rate of interest upon such moneys which it shall have contracted to pay the county upon its funds, and the township may recover the same by civil action.'
We also quote a portion of section 9585: 'Within ten days * * * it shall be the duty of each successful bidder to execute a bond * * * and said bond shall be conditioned for the faithful performance of all the duties and obligations devolving by law upon said depository and for the payment upon presentation of all checks drawn upon said depository by the proper officers of said county or any township whenever any funds shall be in said depository, and that all interest will be paid promptly, and that all said funds shall be faithfully kept and accounted for according to law; and for a breach of said bond the county or any school district or township of said county or any person injured may maintain an action in the name of the county, to the use of the complainant.'
Defendants invoke the rule that, as they are not sureties for hire their obligation is to be strictly construed, and nothing is to be implied against them. From this premise they assert...
To continue reading
Request your trial