Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1893-01-19

~ oAan AoIcS, WHICH passed freelV as
money, but were not legal tender for necn-
mary obligations. The value of this KIND
q o. currency was constantly fluctuatlng.
w nen deprecated treasurers were liable
TO ne tempted to purchase it at a discount
Win more available funds. perhaps coin.
III M their hands, and pay public creditors
with such deprecated currency at face
value. thus making for themselves the
amount OF the discount, The law
was enacted and has since been ra-
talned to prevent such dishonesty
ana wrong. 1nasmuch as, practically,
al the currency now in circulation in the
country as money possesses the legal ten
U t qudllty, the law ceased to be OF much
Importance Manifestly it was never in
Tended to require the treasurer to pay out
lne ldentlcal coins Or treasury notes or
f f0.t certl1lcates received by him officially
lol Iile state, but only that he should not
receive good money into the treasury and
pay the public creditors with deprecated
1unuS, IL any such are in circulation ANY
olner construction Of these statutes would
ignore the reasons for their enactment,
anu, IN our opinion, would lead to manifest
abSurdity.
), The construction of the term svaults of
the treasury" in which the treasurer is
required to keep the moneys of the state,
aS Cnelr own vault or safe in the office OF
lne STATE treasurer, is too narrow, for it
ignores the customary and necessary proc
eSseS universally employed in the conduct
OF business affairs, and the methods by
which the business of the treasurer's Office
mas been conducted from its first oreani-
Zatlon, and would work violent and UNI
necessary change in these methods, to the
great detrlment of public business and the
inconvenience and damage OF public cred
ltOrS. we are not aware of the existence
OF any conditions when that statute was
enacted which called for such extreme
remedy. Further than this, money is q
generic term and may mean any
legal tender, coin and currency,
and also any other circulating
medium or any instruments or tokens in
general use in the commercial world as
representatives of value. 1t includes
whatever is lawfully and actually current
In commercial transactions as the equva-
lent of legal tender coin and currency.
We conclude there is nothing in Section
159 which rendered it unlawful for Treas
urer McFetrldge to make the deposits in
question. The treasurer alone has no au-
thority to make any investment of public
funds. The deposits in question were
made by McFetrldge from any and all
funds in the treasury indiScrlminately, al
though, presumably, his books showed
deposited. Such deposits were made With
out the approval or concurrence Of either of
his associate commissioners OF the public
lands or the governor. If these deposits
were instruments within the meaning OF
the statutes they were unlaWfully made,
but we are Of the opinion that IN making
the deposits in question McFetrldge did
not invest the state funds, and hence that
he did not thereby violate the statutes
which prohibited him from so doing. 1t
was unlawful for him to Stipulate for pay
ment by the banks OF interest on such de-
posts and receive such interest. The
moneys, therefore, were not the fruits of
an illegal transaction, and the claim or the
defense that the state cannot claim the
fruits of illegal transaction without ratfy-
ing the act is no significant.
The treasurer may well be held liable,
absolutely, for all money OF the state COM
ing to his hands, and be held liable also
for the interest on the deposits in question.
Such absolute liability does not necessarily
estop the state to maintain that such inter
est was received by the treasurer by virtue
OF his Office and belongs to his office. 1t
has already been held herein that the pub
lie funds were lawfully deposited by
Treasurer McFetridge with the banks, and
that he lawfully received from such
banks compensation by way OF interest
tor the use OF such deposits. Under these
circumstances, and in the absence OF a
statute separating the interest from the
fund and diverting it TO other uses, such
interest was an accretiCn or increment TO
the fund, thus becoming part OF It, and
logically and necessarily belongs to the
owner of the fund, to-Wit: the state.
After a discussion of the authorities
cited by the defense, the court comes
to the conclusion cited above. In the
Harshaw case, the court, by the same
Justice, gives the following opinion:
There are two appeals in this action, one
by the defendant, Henry b. HarshaW, and
the other by all the remaining de1endants.
Such appeals are from the Judgment OF the
circuit court, in favor OF the state and
against the defendants. The defendant,
HarShaW. was state treasurer for the term
commencing on the first Monday IN
January. 1889, and ending On the first
Monday in January as me peieaqa nus
Hooper, together with Charles b. Clark.
now deceased, are the sureties in his
official bond as such treasurer. The action
is to recover interest paid by banks on de-
posts therein OF the pubic fundSmade Dy
Treasurer HarshaW. in his term OF ONCE.
1t is like the case Of the state VS.. Mctet-
ridge and others, decided herewith, eX-
cept that instead OF receiving the
interest on such deposits himself, Treas.
urer HarShaw and his SuretleS, or some OF
them, secured the services of the defend
ant Schriber to collect and receive II.
Schriber received over $62, OG0 Of such in
terest and deposited the same in the de-
PENDANT National Bank OF Oshkosh, OF
which he was cashier, in the name OF the
defendant, S. NJ. Hay, trustee. Hay IS q
surety IN such bond and the presldenI,t OF
the defendant bank. The money still re-
mains there on deposit. The acton is
in equity for an accounting OF
such interest and to reach such
denOsif i'm the defendant bank. The court
holds the defendant Harshaw and his
sureties liable for the amount of such liz
terest with interest thereon from the close
of his Official term, with costs.
r also holds defendants Schrlber
and the bank liable for the
amount thus deposited, but not Tor
interest thereon or costs Judgment was
entered for the state accordingly, Which
provided that when the amount of such
deposit should be paid the same
should be applied upon the Jug,
ment against Treasurer harshaW and his
suretes, In respect to the liability or the
defendants, Harshaw and his sureties, the
case is ruled by the McFetrid9e ease.
There can be no doubt that the state IS en-
Titled to recover the interest realized on us
funds deposited in the defendant bank by