The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-11-09
TAXES PAID BY CHECK
WHEN ACCEPTED BY COUNTY TREAS
URERs PAYMENT is VALID.
Courts Decision In a Ma
riOn County Case-Grayel-ROad
Tax Appeal.

The Appellate court, Dy Reinnard, Z. j.,
yesterday decided a case of considerable
Importance to taxpayers. 1t was held that
when taxes are paid by check to the proper
person, and that officer accepts the check.
which is finally paid on presentation, the
payment is valid for all purposes and dates
back to the time of the giving of the check.
regardless OF the time the check was pre-
scented and paid or of the time the entry of
the payment is made on the tax duplicates.
TIE case went to this court On appeal from
the Marion Superior Court. William A.
Bruce owed the first payment on a Barrett
law bond. which was due with the April
taxes in 1895. The last day for the pay
ment of these taxes was April 10. April II
Bruce presented a check. through his
father, for the payment. The check was
received by the treasurer, but no receipt
was issued until after the check had been
presented and paid. This was April %. X
requiring the intervening time for the
treasurer to close up the large account of
such business that was on hand when the
time for the payment of the taxes had
passed.
The Indiana Bond Company held the bond
on which this payment was due, and sued
for its collection i'm full, claiming that the
failure to pay it at the proper time had
made the entire amount for the ten years
payable, and refusing to recognize the pay
ment as made to the treasurer as a pay
ment in law. After reviewing the facts in
the case, the court says:
1.-The city in such case is represented by
the treasurer. A payment to the treasurer
is a m to the city He is the agent
of the city for the purpose of collecting the
money. Had the appellee on the Eth day. or
April, 1895, paid the treasurer OF Marion
county an amount In lawful money, sumo
appellee, we apprehend the city would art
erward have been liable to the appellant
for the amount so paid; but whether IL
would have been liable or not, we thlnk
that, in any event, the appellee, after such
payment, would have been discharged from
liability. Hence a payment to the treas
Of the appellee. Now, we debut not mat
the treasurer had a right to refuse to re-
ceive in payment the check rendered by the
would have the right to receive nothing in
payment except coin and United States
treasury NOTES; raa But; t sappo Treasures rer
United States bank notes. and the
treasurer had received the same in pay
ment and laid them away in his vault.
neglecting to credit the appellee Win st ,SSa
same; would it be contended that, after tne
expiration of the time for the payment OF
the installment, the appeiiant couia ma am
pellee's property? In the supposed case II
would be held, and justly so. we think, that
although the bank notes Were ein 20 ascenfed
the same, and they having Injured 10 the
actual benefit and credit of the city, neitneI
the city nor the appellant could be hearo
to say that such acceptance was not a l5-
gal VINE which discharged the appel
lees liability.
The same rule applies, we think; when
-..-. - .Dl onannfod M the
treasurer in payment of an installment OF
an assessment for taxes or improvements.
The treasurer, of course, accepts the SneSH
implicitly On the condition tnat 1t VIII ne
paid on pesentation at the bank. III IT
turns out that the drawer mas no money
on deposit, or not suff1cient 10 cover tne
amount of the check, or II he should WITH
draw his deposits before the check is ae-
tualiy presented, in other words III the
check is dishonored, il would not be a pay
ment WIS. When q a 4 check nrsse Is aioepte ei a the bank bank
the payment relates hack to the time OF
giving the check. This is so in ordinary
reason why there should be an exception
to the rule in a case like the present one:
That such is the rule in the commercial
world, an eminent law writer says there
is no onfict of authority.
THE courts know judicially that the
emergencies in connection with the bust
ness of collecting money Ter taxes ana pup
oils are such as TO make 1t absolutely
impossible that all or any considerable por-
ton thereof should be paid in legal-tender
money. To hold that a tax collector shall
not receive a check in payment of taxes
or assessments such as the one here in
controversy, although such check may be
promptly honored when presented for pay
ment, would entail immeasurable burdens
upon the property owner as well as the
official, without accomplishing a particle OF
benefit to any except, possibly, the promot-
ers Of litigation. There never was any
good reason for the rule commended for
and the modern decisions refuse TO apply
It to the cases Of the character of the
present one.
But the appellants counsel insist that
the debt was not discharged because the
treasurer gave no receipt and made nc
entry on the tax duplicate when he re-
ceived the check. We are unable TO per-
ceive how the failure Of an officer to do
his duty il 1t was such failure, could be
used to the injury of one who in good
faith has discharged every legal obliga-
ton resting upon him." Thad. S. Rollins
appeared for Mr.. Bruce.