Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1893-01-19
INTEREST SUIT DECIDED.
,..-sme Court Affirms the Decision of
CUR Judge Newman.

MADISON, w 49,, JUL. w. u pom duo
.,nsideration, our conclusions upon the
mole case are, and the court
w. holds, that the funds which
Troasurer McFetridge deposited
Nth banks were the property
,f the state; that in making such de-
socits as treasurer and STIMULATING for
nd receiving interest without such
s.;nuIation, he did not violate any law
1.-THE state; that such interest so paid
n him being an accretion or increment
n tbe fund, increasing it by the amount
NJ interest paid thereon, belongs to the
:ate; that Treasurer McFetridge re-
,sived such interest by virtue of his of
fce of state treasurer, and the same
bp1onged to his SAID Office; that his fail
rre to account the refor to the state, or
ndeliver the same to his successor in
oHce as required by law, is breach of
he conditions of his official bond, and
that this action can be maintained on
.1rh bond against him, and his sureties
t5erein to recover the interest thus re-
ejyed by him and unaccounted for.
oIn determining this case the court
bss adopted many Of the views of the
earned circuit judge, but withholds it's
APPROVAL from others. Inasmuch
a we arrive at the same con-
rnsion reached by him, although by
fferent processes of reasoning, it is
Unnecessary to further discuss the prop
ogtions in his very able opinion,
which we are not prepared to adopt.
The judgement of the circuit court
must be affirm ed.
Thus announced Chief Justice Lyon
in the supreme court this morning. in
Gyng the decision of the court in the
ase of the state Of Wisconsin against E.
{. McFetridge, ex-state treasurer, for
the recovery Of interest on public funds
received by him. The decision is also
made to cover the cases against ex-
Treasurer Harshaw, and judgment is
gwen for the amount called for in Judge
ysWman's decision, and interest. Con-
inuing further, the opinion, which is
approved by all the judges except Pin
ney, who did not Sit in the case, is
briefly as follows.
The question whether the state is the
owner of the public funds in the hands of
the treasurer, or whether the legal title
hereto is in the treasurer, must be de-
Pmlned by the statutes prescribing the
rights duties and liabilities of the treas
Ie. The statutes governing the treas
lpr were all in force when, and for a
long time before, the bond in suit was
executed. From beginning to end they
are entirely inconsistent with the theory
hat the legislature intended, by the enact
nent of any OF them, to vest the state
treasurer with the legal ownership OF the
public moneys which come to his hands,
thus making him merely the debtor OF
de state III respect thereto. If such were
EplatOnS to the state, it would be diff
NItto show that such funds were not sub.
Hto be seized for his debts, or, in case of
he death OF the treasurer in office, that
N@me would not go to his administra-
Tor as part and parcel of his estate, the
tate being perhaps preferred creditor.
Is lnconceivable that any legislature
Gould intend such results, and there IS
Mhrg Ill any statute which forces the
0ncuS0n that they did so. A close an
LysT OF the above statutes, or any extend
ddScNSSlon OF them. is quite unnecessary,
NGtl0n to the mind that the legislature
Her Intended to diyeSt the state of it's
le 10 the public funds in the
a0S OF the treasurer. The de-
&& IN the bank were made in
An2me OF the state treasurer, in his Of
'aIclpaclty as such. No time of credit
VAS gwen uDOn them, but they were pay
4FWheneyer required by the treasurer,
lhee could only be drawn on the Of
M draft or check of the treasurer.
tFy were made in accordance with the
9@ and lOn@-COntinued course Of buSi-
@% IN mat department. of the state gov
4MVht. Ihey were not made primarily
ue purpose OF gain or profit TO the
%9ufer, but because the eXlgencies of
oaSiAeSS department, and the reason
"0 convenience OF creditors OF the state,
Entered II almost absolutely necessary
-4@at2 funds should be kept in different
SuoNS OF the state and in the cities of
~U"so ana New \ DIRK, against which the
~@SWet might draw. Such methods had
walled and deposits had been made in
%aSahd drawn against by all the different
SNuieTS iOr thirty years or more before
execution of The bonds in suit. A
%sV PORTION OF the public funds were thus
Ou oepoSlt during the whole period,
>>atGSOurSed through the instrumentall-
~WuS oil thousands, even hundreds OF
S,USdluS, OF drafts or checks drawn by
ir" % treaSurers in the name OF
r .n, against such deposits. TO say
nr MIN! @uGtt citizen residing in the state
st4? any considerable portion of that
.aI"v specially II he was a member OF
n" s%lature. that he did not know OF
, %byourSe on business would be an i'm
, %ralent OF his intelligence. Under these
syt Stances 1t IS reasonable to hold that
T %a e UeaSurerS We're justified in trans
ar S We business of their department as
sr MA transact it, and as such business
81 sr TiVS. invariably conducted in the COM
& sS it,. world, unless those methods were
E;nY.IeU oy some statutes Of state.
d pSatmed that the provision i'll Section
ina "SNI!Sed Statutes, making it prima
Sear whence of embezzlement OF any
a. on VI other person who, having the
N n ff@Soay or possession of the prop
M u ra m,uolher, loans or deposits it for his
81 N,igSI " a profit or advantage without
Nm ms%fushouty, prohibits the treasurer
.r, SS"Mthg the deposits in question, in
aof as ~ ne made them with the inten-
s2f V1A'eIting to his own use any in
HIN banks should thereafter
,'H on such deposits. To sub
aalHo, pUolic officer to the serious
grSL. OF the statute there must
Dis ntf'.LlhS III the character and Incl
Ne,ari1, We deposit to show that he has
>~5S'rEs lhe obligations of his trust
u3, lile same, or it cannot justly be
hmm o az mas deposited the money for
bin H. I'li /: SO long as his actions are
Ia e ec IN. me Of his duty he is not an
cetfn1', ..'though he may intend at some
b. N''.t 10 70 III, avn, ,,co