Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-04-17

force. it is Questionable whether the Treas
uEer OF that corporation would have the pswer
to pay these coupons upon their mere p.ese--
tstion to him. Bat the defendant Chamber
lin IS not an eff er OF the lefty and county
OF Sacramento" he is Treasurer of an entire
IL different corporation, viz, the city Of
| Sacramento" His duties, Therefore, are pre-
scrlbed by the Acs Of 1868 Section of
that Act provides that the President of the
Board Of Trustees ''shall sign all warrants
draTn upon tbs treasury for the payment OF
money cut OF any Of its funds" Section 16
provides that no demand upon the treasury
shall be allowed by the Auditor in favor of
any person who is indebted to either
the city or any of its fund.-, trusts or usss,
without first deducting therefrom the
amount of such Indebtedness" Section 9
provides that "every demand upon the
treasury, except demands on the school
fund, must be acted upon by the Board of
Trustees, and be by them allowed or rejected
in whole or in part" It also provides that
the City Auditor shall have veto Of all de-
mands allowed. Section % crestes a fund
for the payment OF the interest," Of bonds
legally issued for city Indebtedness. Now,
has the Treasurer TO taxa the responsibility
OF deciding all these matters? II seems to
me clear that, with the exception Of demands
upon the school fund, he is not legally bound
TO pay any demands upon the treasury except
those which have bean approved By the
Board Of Trustees, and for which wsrrants
haze hsen issued, signed by the President of
the Board and the Auditor. OF course, the
law might have provided that the Treasurer
should pay the coupons when presented to
him, but it has not so provided.
After | had arrived at the conclusions
above stated, and had written nearly sll of
this opinion, my attention was called TO the
case OF the State of Louisiana ex rel. Elliott
Ct ala. VI. Allen Jumei, Auditor, and certain
other STATE officerP, recently decided by the
Supreme Court of the United States. That
case fully confirms the views herein before ex-
pressed. It is O very instructive case, but as
this opinion ID already quite lengthy, I will
refer TO that case upon one point alone. In
the case ut bar it Was conceded by both par
ties that the moneys in the interest fund con-
stitute trust for the benefit Of the bondhold.
ers. Plaintiff says that he has property
interest in it, and defendants say that as the |
amount due upon coupons is much greater |
than the amount OF money in the fund, as
appears from the complaint therefore all the |
coupon holders should be made parties, and |
the money should be distributed pro rata by |
Court of equity. I do not concur in these |
views. IN the case last above referred to
which on this point is precisely ike the case at
ia Dut'&GtAO SGtLS VI VIC Ouitcu OttLGS |
says: The money in the treasury is the |
property of the State and not ia any legal |
sense the property Of the bond or coupon
holders If lost or destroyed the loss viii fall |
on tie State" And again Th5 Treasurer |
Is 10 more trustee of these moneys than be |
is Of all other public moneys. he halds them, |
but only % the agent of the Ssate.s If there |
is any trust, the State is the trustee, and I'M
less the State can be sued the trustee cannot |
be enjoined'
OF course, what would be best to be done as
to the matter involved in this action, viewed |
from the standpoint OF public credit, good |
morals and business sense. is question TO be
determined by. the people and taxpayers of
the city, or their agent, the local government.
Il is not judicial question.
l conclude that the demurrers should all be
sustained. Let an order to that effect be en-
tered, and giving plaintiff twenty days in
which to amend his complaint. if lie shall be
advised SO to do. Y. B. MCFARLAND,
Superior Judge.