The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-11-08
THATE|GHTEENT THOUSAND
The States Deposit in a Great Falls
Bank in a Cascade County
Court
Treasurer Wright Wins the First
Round In His Fight With
tho Directors.
Judge Benton Says the T~rsasurer Is Hs-
spons,ble for the Money and tho state
Holds Him for It.

Judge Benton, Of ths eighth judicial
distriot. has rendered . decision in tho Case
Of Frod W. Wrieh, W. II. p. Role. Will
Hanks, VIM. Ulm. s. N. Diokey. y. Il.
Austin. II. Il. ClinGan and John Sinclair.
Tho suit grows out Of the failure OF tne
Merchants Nstional bank of Great Falls.
Mr.. Wright. ~ state treasurer. had Sls.oo
In the bank whom II closed. Before de-
p~ositinr ths money he had the defendants.
Who are directors in this Merchants bank.
execute 4 BOND to him for $25.OC % This
vas In addition to the usual security given
bv the bank to derositors. A demand was
made on tho bank July 10 for tho money,
but it was refused. and 4 few days after
ward the bank failed. Then suit vas en-
tered against tho directors who had given
the bond, Attorney General Haskell. Miss
Ella Knowles and James Donovan repre-
senting ths state treasurer. Lieua.-Gov.
Boskin appearing for the defendants. Inc
defense filed u general demurrer. al
lsaing that Wright was improperly made "
defendant. on the ground that She money
sought to be recovered was not his; that
the complaint did not set forth suffio'sns 10
constitute q Gauss Of action; in that the
contract set forth in the complaint between
Wright and the directors WAS contrary TO
pubiic policy aud good morals; that the
complaint was unintelliRible, in that - dio
noi appesr whether the plaintiff bought
the action In his individual capacity or -
stato treasurer.
Jadas Benton ovsssuled the demu'rer.
and in doing 80 rendered tbs following
The action IL Brought In the name Of +.
". Wright, Tho complaint alleges that
The money IL the property OF the state; that
the plaintiff is she state treasurer. and that
10 secure the plaintiff and same him harm
less, the bond Was taken for money de-
rositsd IN the Merchants National bank OF
Great Falls. II 10 commended that the aston
should be brought In the name OF ths state,
''as the real party in interest" The state
treasurer IL required by law to give q bona
for the protection Of the state. ana unon
tkjs bond the state must rely. In oass IL ID
ssllsd upon TO loo to any one except the
tYessu OF. The treasurer 10 responsible for
the fund In his hands, and the bond In suit
runs to him and not TO the state. The fact
that il Ia alleged that she money belongs to
the state does not Affect these facts. He 10
The lawful custodian Of tho funds. respon-
sibls for them. and being responsible had q
right to protect himself In any wsS he saw
fl.
Had the action besn Brought in ths name
Of the state it seems TO me. the bond could
have never been received In evidence in tle
ease, or evidence Of Its execution given. II
obisction be made thereto. ] am of the
opinion that there IL no law authorizing the
state TO make such q contract. or the treas-
uxer to make such an one In its behalf. II
no authority IL given by the statute donb
see how the treasure OK could enter into any
valid bond in behal OF the state OF Mt al.
except to secure himself.
1T il a general rule capable Of practical
application. that the party who will TO
directly benefited by the successful prose-
cution of the action, and who will be enti-
Sled to receive damage recovered, IL the
proper party to be lnads plaintiff in tho
action"
The state has its lawful remedy against
the treasurer in case OF his default. and
would not be affected by the SUCCESS or fail
urs of this ease. l don't think the defend
ANTS views are In conflict WITH tho authoz''
ties cited By the asfendants attorneys.
The further objection 10 raised that the
oonttact set forth in the complaint, 10 SON
trary to public policy and good morals.
The com claint alleges shat the defendants
are directors and stockholders Of the Dc sz-
chants National bank of Great Falls. and
that the moneys wero deposited Mt the spe-
ctsl instance and request OF tbs Gefsudants.
These allegations are Of course to be taken
as true on demurrer. The act Of the plain
ti6 in taking the bono in question Ia not
contrary to law, and there il no law either
hub0Of1Z]uR OF pTOlADAblHR buCu u COubERCs.
It is net claimed that the plaintiff made u
profit out of tbs moneys. or that no has
made himself liable undez section IA of ths
statutes, and such being the case / don't
see how the defendants can take advantage
of their v act, in bar Of this action. If
the astiol. OF the parties was prohibited by
law, probably the law would leave all the
parties whore It finds them, but suoh no,
being the case the doctrine of essoppel 10
enforced, and she question arises under
this part Of the demurrer whether toe de-
PENDANTS arc in q position to sey that the
contract Is contrary to good morals and
against public policy. The money was de-
posited at their request. They were the
directors and Stockholders OF the bank.
They signed tho contract and received any
benefit arising therefronl, and | don't think
they can now gay that their own acts arc
Invalid and against good morals. and thus
escape liability.
The defendants have twenty days in
which TO dls an answer.