Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1893-01-14

/
funds. The deposits in question were
made by Treasurer McFetridgc from
any and an the funds in the treasury,
Unfortunately although presumably
/ his books showed what amount Of each
fund was thus deposited. Such depos
/ its were made without the approval
( or concurrence Of either Of his associate
commissioners Of the public lands or
1.-The governor If those deposits were
Investments, within the meaning Of the
above statutes, they We're unlawfully
lmade. Were they Investments
! The distinction between a general
deposit Of money IN a bank payable al
any time on demand, and an invest
uent Of such money, Is plain and sub
stantial BY such a deposit the deposl
I tor does rot lose control Of the money,
but may reclaim it at any time True,
he loses control Of the specific coin or
currency deposited, but not Of an equal
amount Of coin or currency having the
same qualities and value, which, as we
have seen, is all that is required Of
/ him
! But II the funds in the treasury are
invested in Upited States or state
bonds, or in loans on time to counties.
cities, etc, the treasurer loses control
thereof, and the same cannot be re-
placed in the treasury until such bonds
are paid or sold, or such loans become
due and are collected by due course Of
law The retention by the treasurer
Of substantial control over the funds
in the one case and his loss Of such
control in the other, marks the leading
distinction between mere deposit OF
the funds and an investment thereof,
as those terms are used in statutes.
This principle vas applied by the SUI
preme court Of Pennsylvania in the
case Of Estate Of Law, 144 Pa. ST., 400.
In the opinion Of the court we find the
following language: "a deposit is
where sum Of money is left with a
banker for safe keeping, subject to
order and payable, not in the specific
money deposited, but in an equal sum.
It may or may not bear interest ac-
cOrdng to the agreement. Whilst the
relation between the depositor and his
banker Is that of debtor and creditor
simply, the transaction cannot in any
proper sense be regarded as a loan I'M
less the money is left not for safe
keeping, but for a fixed period, at In
terest, in which case the transaction as
sumes all the characteristics of loan.
The above views meet our approval.
a valuable note to that case in which
many cases are cited bearing upon,
and supporting, these views win be
found in Book 1t, Lawyers Rep. An
not, 1O3
We are Of The opinion, therefore
that in making the deposits in question
with banks, Treasurer McFchidge did
not invest the state funds, and hence
that he did not thereby violate the
statutes which prohibited him from so
doing.
1t is believed that the foregoing dis,
cusslon covers all the reasons urged in
support Of the contention that the de-
posits in question were Illegally made,
and interest thereon Illegally received
by Treasurer McFetndge.
our conclusion on the second piinci-
pal proposition or hypothesis above
stated, is, that Treasurer McFcuidgc
did not violate any law Of the state
when he made general deposits Of the
state funds with banks, subject to his
drafts therefor payable on demand.
f.,I1, len IN
illusions that it was not unlawful for
him TO stipulate for payment by the
banks Of interest on such deposits, and
to receive such interest. 1t is under
stood indeed rs a matter Of common
knowledge that when the present
state treasurer, Mr. Hummer, went into
Office he continued the former practice
of depoSitiug the funds in banks and
eNactiug ANA receiving interest there
on. But contrary to such practice he
accounted To the state for such interest
by charging himself herewith in his
account with the state, and paid out
the Sumo as the money of the state.
I'm all this, he was undoubtedly strictly
within the line of his duty The mode
OF making such deposits is now rCgll-
lated by Oh, 273 laws of 1891.
/ ON the theory that the deposits in
question were illegally made, and inter
est thereon Illegally received, it was
claimed on the argument for defend
ants that it is essential that tie legis-
lature waive such illegaiy, and ratify
those transactions Of the treasurer, be
fore the state can maintain this action.
It is said that, in the absence Of such
ratification. the state is claiming the
fruits Of illegal transactions. Whatever
force there might be in this position
were the money sought to be recover
ed the proceeds of an illegal contract
it ceases TO be significant after it has
been determined that the transactions
through which the money was obtained
were legal If there has been a breach
of the condition OF Treasurer MeFct-
ridges official bond to the injury OF
the state ii was the duty Of the attor-
uay general. on request Of the governor
or secretary Of state (which request
,,.iI In. t,r,slffup,N In bring suit on such