Board of County Commissioners v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co.

40 P.2d 371, 141 Kan. 301, 1935 Kan. LEXIS 137
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJanuary 26, 1935
DocketNo. 32,161
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 40 P.2d 371 (Board of County Commissioners v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Board of County Commissioners v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co., 40 P.2d 371, 141 Kan. 301, 1935 Kan. LEXIS 137 (kan 1935).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The action was one by the board of county commissioners of Cherokee county to recover from the surety on the bond of the county treasurer, who defaulted. The facts were agreed to. The court stated conclusions of law, and rendered judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Homer L. Cline was county treasurer, and gave bond, signed by defendant as surety, conditioned as follows:

“Now, therefore, the condition of this obligation is such that, if the said Homer L. Cline, and his deputy, and all persons employed in his office, shall faithfully and promptly perform the duties of said office, and if the said Homer L. Cline and his deputies shall pay, according to law, all moneys which shall come to his hands as treasurer, and will render a just and true account thereof whenever required by said board of commissioners or by any provision of law, and shall deliver over to his successors in office or to any other person authorized by law to receive the same, all moneys, books, papers and other things appertaining thereto or belonging to his said office, then the above obligation to be void; otherwise to be in full force and effect.”

The bond is in the form prescribed by the Laws of 1868. After the year 1868 changes were made in the manner of handling public money. One of the changes was, adoption of the county depository system. The statutes were revised in 1923. The old form of bond was preserved in R. S. 19-502, and consequently was deemed by the legislature to apply to conduct of the county treasurer under the county depository system.

The county treasurer is required 'to keep a just and true account of receipts and expenditures of all moneys which come into his hands as county treasurer, and to make stated and other settlements with the county commissioners, at which he exhibits his books, moneys, accounts and vouchers.

The county commissioners designate banks in the county as county depositaries of funds which come into the hands of the [303]*303county treasurer by virtue of his office. He is required to make daily deposit of such funds. The bank gives bond to pay the deposit promptly, upon check of the county treasurer.

The county clerk’s office is the general bookkeeping office of the county. The county clerk keeps accounts of receipts and expenditures of the county, and keeps accounts of the county with its various officers. There are special provisions relating to the account with the county treasurer. When the treasurer pays out money, he takes duplicate receipts, and gives one to the county clerk. When the treasurer makes a deposit in a bank, he gives a duplicate deposit slip to the county clerk.

The treasurer’s check on a depository bank must be countersigned by the county clerk.

A check must show the purpose for which it is drawn. In Cherokee county there were three county depositaries. One was the Baxter State Bank, of Baxter Springs. Checks would be drawn by the county treasurer to equalize deposits among banks. In such cases, the purpose for which the check was drawn would be indicated by the word “exchange,” or by the letters “ex” or “exchg” following the printed word “For.”

On June 30,1933, Homer L. Cline drew the following check:

The countersignature of the county clerk, H. Carter Brookhart, was by rubber stamp facsimile of that officer’s signature. The agreed statement of facts recites:

“That facsimile signature stamps had been used for the purpose of countersigning treasurer’s checks and other documents in the county clerk’s office by incumbents of the county clerk’s office for approximately five years. The facsimile signature stamp of H. Carter Brookhart, the present county clerk, had been in use by him for about eighteen months. It was kept locked in the [304]*304vaults of the county clerk’s office whenever the office was closed. During business hours it was left out on the desks and counters in the county clerk’s office, where it was available for use by the county clerk and his deputies.”

Cline used this rubber stamp to forge the countersignature on check No. 499 B. S. B.

Cline indorsed the check and sent it to the Securities Corporation of America, at Kansas City, Mo. The indorsee put it in course of collection, and in due time the check was paid by the Baxter State Bank. The county had no business with the Securities Corporation of America, and by means of the check, Cline depleted, for his private purposes, his official account as county treasurer with the bank. The brief for defendant says Cline was trying to get rich quick.

The conduct with respect to check No. 499 B. S. B. is illustrative, and will serve as a basis for discussion of liability of the surety for the greater portion of the sum sued for, $70,710.78.

The answer pleaded the check was not a legal order which could be honored and paid by the bank, and charged against the county treasurer’s deposit in the bank. Specifications were the check was forged, the county clerk’s countersignature was forged, the check was not payable for any purpose authorized by law, and the check was not payable to any person authorized to receive money from the public treasury. Then the answer alleged the relation of the bank to the county was that of debtor and creditor, the deposits were property of the bank, the bank still owes the county, and the county has lost nothing.

The argument in support of defendant’s position is set forth in a brief of 147 pages, the lettered subdivisions of which exhausted the alphabet except the letters x, y and z, and one division contains six subdivisions. The court will not undertake to discuss these propositions one by one. All the court can do is to indicate two or three fundamental defects in defendant’s argument which are decisive of the controversy.

Some minor matters may be disposed of first. The funds the treasurer collects, deposits and pays out are public funds belonging to the county, but the treasurer is the public officer elected by the people and designated by law to receive, to deposit, and to pay out. The county treasurer does all this in his name and capacity as county treasurer.

Sometimes the depositary in which public funds are deposited has been spoken of in decisions of this court as an official agent or quasi [305]*305public official. The- names are apt, but they change no relation of the bank to the county or to the county treasurer, the relation being just that established by law.

Defendant calls the county clerk the “control officer.” His official duties have been sufficiently described. With respect to checks drawn by the county treasurer, his function is to authenticate. He is purely a ministerial officer, with no discretion to refuse to authenticate a proper check.

The treasurer must deposit daily in a depositary bank. All that requirement does, is to substitute a bank for the treasurer’s pocket, or office till, or safe, or vault, or private bank. As an incidental consequence, the' bank holds a deposit, when made, the same as if it were a deposit by a private person, and the county receives interest on the deposit; but the treasurer’s power over public money is not otherwise increased nor diminished. He is still the public official who receives and deposits and pays.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Perry v. Board of Franklin County Comm'rs
132 P.3d 1279 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2006)
State v. Garvin
57 P.2d 39 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1936)
Kansas Amusement Co. v. Eddy
57 P.2d 458 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 P.2d 371, 141 Kan. 301, 1935 Kan. LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-county-commissioners-v-united-states-fidelity-guarantee-co-kan-1935.