Case ID: mont_74/html/0164-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      MB. JUSTICE' MATTHEWS", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE ex rel. CARTERSVILLE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Plaintiff, v. McGRAW, County Treasurer, Defendant.
    (No. 5,781.)
    (Submitted July 6, 1925.
    Decided July 18, 1925.)
    [240 Pac. 817.]
    
      Irrigation Districts — District Funds Deposited With County Treasurer — Loss in Insolvent County Depositories — Liability of County.
    
    1. Held, under State ex rel. School District v. McGraw, ante, p. 152, that a county is liable to an irrigation district for the loss of funds deposited by the latter with the treasurer of the former as required by section 4767, Revised Codes of 1921, as amended by Chapter 137, Laws of 1925, and redeposited by the treasurer in county depositories which failed.
    Depositories, 18 C. J., sec. 76, p. 594, n. 42 New.
    Original application for writ of mandate by the State of Montana, on the relation of the Cartersville Irrigation District, against John McGraw, County Treasurer of Rosebud County.
    Writ issued.
    
      Messrs. Spaulding & McConnell, Mr. Hugh T. Carter, Mr.A. W. O’Rourke and Mr. H. V. Beeman, for Relator.
    
      Mr. L. A. Foot', Attorney General, and Mr. A. H. Angstman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   MB. JUSTICE' MATTHEWS

delivered the opinion of tlie court.

Original application for writ of mandate, to which the defendant interposed a demurrer.

The facts and the questions involved are identical with those in State ex rel. School District v. McGraw, Treasurer of Rosebud County, ante, p. 152, 240 Pac. 812, except as to the identity of the plaintiff and the amount in controversy.

The plaintiff here was duly organized under and by virtue of Chapter 146, Laws of 1909; it is a public corporation and a political subdivision of the state (sec. 7169, Bev. Codes, 1921; O’Neill v. Yellowstone Irr. Dist., 44 Mont. 492, 121 Pac. 263; Crow Creek Irr. Dist. v. Crittenden, 71 Mont. 66, 227 Pac. 63), with independent officers charged with the management of its affairs. However, as in the case of school districts, the county treasurer is made the treasurer of the district (secs. 7239 and 7240, Bev. Codes 1921), and the irrigation district stands in the same position, and is subject to the same disabilities, as the school district with respect to funds in the county treasury.

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the opinion referred to, the demurrer herein is overruled. Let the writ as prayed for issue forthwith.

Writ issued.

Mr. Chief Justice Callaway and Associate Justices Holloway, Stark and Galen concur.