Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-12-08
OF THE SUPREME cOURr
OFFICIAL,
Opinions of the Supreme Court of On e
state OF Tennessee, at Knoxville, sep
TEN Der Eerna, 1859. 4

Opinions of the supreme Court Of On
State OF Tennessee, at Knoxville, SEP.
tenn Der Term, 1853.
James II PEGS, Trastee &c. vs. Jane. James, Trustee &C.
James James, as present Trustee of Granger
county, moved against James H. Peek, his prede
cessor, for the balance Of the Common School money
remaining N his hands.
This bill was filed by Peck, claiming a right to be
exonerated fromlabilIty for so much of the amount
reported against him, consists OF bank notes which
have become vauless since re received them except
so far to pay over to his successor the identical
bank notes received and he prays thaths successor
be compelled TO accept them in discharge Of their
nominal amount
The case made by the BILL is. that, upon the war
rant Vf the Comptroller for the Common School
fund due to the county of Granger fui. the wear
1856 the Branch Of the Bank of Tennessee at Rogers
vile, paid over to him twelve or fourteen hundred
dollars upon the " Bank of East Tennessee" which
was then believed by him to be good and solvent
and its bills were everywhere current and bankabe
THAT he notified the Common School Commissioners
of his county that he had the money, and paid It
1t out TO them according 10 law, as fast thdy
applied for it, and guilty Of no neglect Or
delay, in apprOpriating and paying it out as
directed by law; that while thus engaged in
discharging the duties incumbent On him, by the
statutes regulating the Common School fund the
Bank failed, when he still had in his hands $3.50 Of
the sand notes, whish are hoW worthless. Tie
prayer Is that his successor, the defendant be com
PEELED to receive the said notes, and that he be al
lowed credit for that amount
The demurrer of the defendant was overI'uled
and he refusing to answer make further defence
final decree was made in pursuance OF the prayer'
of the bill
We think the principle settled in the ease Of THE
Governor VS.. McEwen must govern this. HumTi
265 1t is held in that case, that the measure of f.
duciary responsibility in the view of Court Of
Chancery will be the same whether arising from
public private relations And that in the all |
sence of bad faith the fair and equitable pri
ciples of adjustment which govern the subject of |
agency in general, viii be applied to and regulate
the Accountability of public agents. In that easa
McEwen. as superintendent of public instruction. |
with the collection. custody and control |
Of the Common School fund by the act of 1885, cFd
Rtlng the office and fixing his duties was allowed |
credit for such clrcu atIng paper rency collected
by him, his agents, which were received in good !
faith, then being current, but became WORTHLESS or
deprecated by subsequent 1t would seeIntb
be hard rule upon the public agents. or trustees |
to make them accountable for the failure Of the I
banks whose notes they may have received at time /
when such banks had good credit, and their notes |
in all the channels of business and com
MERGE. at par with specie; and in fact then com I
vertible into specie. If this were 50. no One would
hold such offices they would be-driyen to the irF
convenient necessity OF receiving nothing but gold
and silver which would be. out OF. and contrary 10
the ordinary course of business both public an prf
vate. In the case under Consideration and those OF
a similar character, where the fund was received /
from the financial agent of the State the rule of act
insisted upon would be particularly !
harsh and severe. Good men would be deferred /
from holding these important trusts, If such we're
the rules of law on the subject, |
sherifis, and Other collectors of the public revenue
are required by statute to receive current tank
notes. whether the tax be for common school OF l
other purposes. These trustees and all others, rel
ceive them in their own business and lawyers. |
clerks and other agents, both public and private
iemand nothing better In the absence of special |
Instructions. True. in. all these cases, [exeept
the collectors of taXes.l rs well as the case beE
fore US, specie may be demanded as there is 9TH
pr lawful tender. But the question Is a. 70 his act
if he has not
The County Trustee X required to keep the fund
received for the county safely until it is paid out BY
him TO the District Common School Commissioners
for the purposes intended. But this does not /
IMPLY that he is TO use no diligence to guard
against loss by the failure of banks, or otherWise
He will be held to fidelity and diligence in his trust
well in this in all other respects. In order to
discharge himself in such case, it will be mount
,ent upon nina 10 snow that he vas yigilant IN his
rust TO prevent the loss under all the crcumstanE
,es and furthermore, TO prove, otherwise than by
lis own statements in his bill. that the notes for
which he CLAIMS credit, the same received by
lin in his trust. If this Is not required the great
st frauds might be practsed by these public agents.
All the bad notes in the neighhCFhood might be pack
q Of APGn the slae, The bill Is NOS sufficiently
pecial on these points, and should have been ant
Iwered by the defendant, upon tle-pYerrung Of lbs
ionuTrer as to have raised the proper issues OF
act and put the complainant upon the proof of his
lase. lis duty to see that no injury be done 10
this or any other public fund, by the RattentiOn on
,OhnIVaHGe Of those. who succeed to q trust and
hat a for relief is fully made out. 0therwisei
he rule we adopt would be subject to very great
Lbuse. The Chancellor should have made a referl
nee to the Master. for report upon these material
POINTS before final decree. While we hold that
he Trustee sheuld be relieved in the case we have
tated. we think great particularly and strictnes{
hould be required by the Courts in making out the
ase, to avoid impositiOns and frauds and prOduce
reater caution and the part of these and other
public agents, in the discharge Of their duties They
hOuld always be prepared to show the identity OF the
und and that they have haeH guilty OF no want of
tiganOe in endeavOring to secure 1t, and by every
easOnablC means to save the public from loss. The
notes should also be brought into court with the J.
NIL, upon order to be identified with reason
lbe certainty, and subject to it, control We are
lot to be understood prescribing different rules
# evidence In these from others. but only to
'eqGire that complainant shall make out his case
he full satisfaction of the Court and that the Court
shall see that the is fully and fairly defended
We are not TO be understood. either, intimating
hat see anything in this case to excite suspicOn
Put our remarks are intended to be general for the
IF this favored fund II
The State should havebeen made party defend
INT. and that may be done by amendment when the
case goes back. e CARVuHERs |
A true copy Test: c. W,-NrLs9y, Clerk, /