Federal Deposit Ins. Corporation v. Casady

106 F.2d 784, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 4726
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 25, 1939
Docket1833
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 106 F.2d 784 (Federal Deposit Ins. Corporation v. Casady) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Federal Deposit Ins. Corporation v. Casady, 106 F.2d 784, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 4726 (10th Cir. 1939).

Opinion

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.

The First State Bank of Cheyenne, Oklahoma, having become insolvent on March 25, 1935) it was closed and taken over by the B.ank Commissioner of said state for liquidation. Deposits in said bank were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Company as limited by Section Í2B (a), (yj, of Act of june 16, 1933, § 8, 48 Stat.. 168, 179, as amended by Act of June 16, 1934, § 1, 48 Stat. 969, 12 U.S.C. A. § 264. ......

John C. ■ Casady, as treasurer of-the .town of Cheyenne, carried, five separate and distinct deposits in said bank, at all times designated and appearing on its books as separate deposits, and in each at time said bank failed the balances therein were respectively as follows:

City of Cheyenne Sinking Fund $11,752.04
■City of Cheyenne; Paving Fund 1,801,06
Firemen’s Pension. Fund 462.68
City of Cheyenne Meter Fund 131.00
Cheyenne General Fund 156.43

Said treasurer and other appropriate and necessary parties instituted this action in the' district court of Roger Mills County, Oklahoma, against the bank and' the Insurance Corporation and other parties defendant to recover the sum of $5,000 on the sinking fund deposit liability and the full amount of each of the.other four deposits.

The case was duly removed by the Insurance Corporation to the United States Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, the court ruling that it had thereby acquired jurisdiction. Judgment having been rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, the Insurance Corporation appealed. 1

Section 12B subsection (l) of the Federal Reserve Act of June 16, 1933, 48 Stat. 168, as amended by the Act of June 16, 1934, among other things provides as follows :

“For the purposes of this subsection, the term ‘insured deposit liability’ shall mean with respect to the' owner of any claim arising out of a deposit liability of .such closed bank the following percentages o.f the net amount due to such owner by such closed bank on account of deposit liabilities. * * *

“That, in determining the amount due to such owner for the purpose of fixing such percentage, there shall be added together all net amounts due to such owner in the same capacity or the same right, on account of deposits, regardless of whether such deposits be maintained in his name or in the names of others for his benefit.”

Sinking Funds. — Sections 26, 27, and 28, Article 10, Const, of Oída., Okl.St. Ann., impose certain limitations on bonded indebtedness, providing that a city, town, school district or county incurring any indebtedness requiring the assent of the voters thereof shall before or at the time of so doing .provide for the levy and collection of án annual ta-x sufficient to pay interest ' on such indebtedness as it becomes due and also to constitute a sinking fund for the payment of the principal thereof within 25 years from the date of such contracting of the same. 2

A city or town holds the legal title to the sinking fund in trust for the bond.holders and judgment creditors. St. Louis-San Francisco R. R. Co. v. Blake, 10 Cir., 36 F.2d 652; Hidalgo County Road Dist. No. 1 v. Morey, 5 Cir., 74 F.2d 101; Anthony v. State, 49 Kan. 246, 30 P. *787 488; 44 C.J. p. 1233, Sections 4215, 4216, 4217.

That each deposit represented a fund created for a separate purpose and was so carried on the hooks of the bank is not controverted. Provision for separation of funds raised by taxation levies in Oklahoma is fundamentally required. 3

Sections 16 and 19, Article 10, Olda.Const., Okl.St.Ann., mandatory and prohibitory in language, are self-executing. Ex parte McNaught, 23 Okl. 285, 100 P. 27, and cases therein cited.

A separate fundamental right and capacity in which the fund must be held cannot be displaced either by legislative or administrative act. Bank of Picher v. Morris, 157 Okl. 122, 11 P.2d 178; Allen v. Board of County Commissioners, 131 Okl. 41, 267 P. 860; State v. Moreland, supra; Protest of Reid, 160 Okl. 3, 15 P.2d 995.

National Surety Co. v. State, ex rel. Richards, 111 Okl. 185, 239 P. 262, and Shull v. Town of Avant, 159 Okl. 271, 15 P.2d 49, cited with reliance on part of appellant, the former involving an action on a county treasurer’s bond for a breach of duty as custodian of certain municipal and township bonds, and the latter as to priorities in case of insolvency of a bank, have no application in the instant case.

Further, Dillard v. Sappington, 151 Okl. 47, 1 P.2d 748; Dempsey Oil & Gas Co. v. Citizens’ National Bank, 110 Old. 39, 235 P. 1140; State ex rel. Barnett v. Exchange Nat. Bank, 172 Okl. 361, 45 P.2d 759, also cited by appellant, have neither controlling nor persuasive application to the questions here involved as to the right or capacity in which the town treasurer held these several funds in said separate accounts.

Each of such deposits created for a separate and distinct purpose, and each carried in the bank as separate from the others, was held in a separate right and capacity.

Statutory provision has been made for investment of sinking funds. 4

Sinking funds must go into the ultimate payment and liquidation of the bonds and judgments, and not be otherwise used. 5

General fund warrants are payable out of the general fund and the Treasurer as such may even maintain a suit thereon *788 against his own town for the purpose of bringing the funds back into the sinking fund by way of replenishment. 6

Paving Funds. — -The legislature may authorize county and municipal corporations to levy and collect assessments for local improvements upon property benefited thereby, homesteads included, without regard to a cash valuation. Section 7, Art. 10, Const, of Okla., Okl.St.Ann.

Such assessments and interest thereon, whether collected by the city or town clerk or county treasurer, are to be paid to the city or town treasurer who must keep' the same in a separate special fund, not derived from general taxes, 7 and in no sense a fund of the city or town, for the purpose of paying the paving bonds and interest coupons thereon, and after the payment of all bonds and interest thereon, any surplus remaining in said fund shall be used for the purpose of repairing and maintaining any improvement for which such assessments have been levied, and for no other purpose whatsoever. 8

The relation between the town or city through its officers and the bondholder thus created is that of an express trust created by law in which the city is the trustee and the bondholder the cestui que trustent. Straughn v. Berry et al., 179 Okl. 364, 65 P.2d 1203; Beggs v. Kelly, 110 Okl. 274, 238 P.

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

Related

Opinion No.
Arkansas Attorney General Reports, 1987
Opinion No. (1985)
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1985
DeLorenzo v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
259 F. Supp. 193 (S.D. New York, 1966)
Billings County v. Federal Deposit Ins.
71 F. Supp. 696 (D. North Dakota, 1947)
Murdoch v. City of Asbury Park
48 F. Supp. 18 (S.D. New York, 1942)
Bates v. Farmers Savings Bank
3 N.W.2d 517 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1942)
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. J. G. Menihan Corp.
111 F.2d 940 (Second Circuit, 1940)
The Eastern Shore
31 F. Supp. 964 (D. Maryland, 1940)
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. J. G. Menihan Corp.
29 F. Supp. 853 (W.D. New York, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 F.2d 784, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 4726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federal-deposit-ins-corporation-v-casady-ca10-1939.