The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-02-28
THE TREASURER LIABLE.


olvup,a. Feb. z7.-Speciai. The supreme
court has decided thai tho county tttas
ursr fs liable personally or on nus Dona
for money deposited Ia q bank winch 3AtsI-
wards became insoissnl wnero there -
no charge OF negligence against the OF
ncer. and when the county nas ia4iea -
supply a safe depository. The case vas
mai Of ]. q. Fairchlld. appellant, VI. the
treasurer. auditor and commissioners OF
pierce county. TIE appellant vas for
four years prior 10 January lszo. treas
urer OF Pierce county. and kespondent
Heslges saceeeded him During his term
appellant Deposited money In various
har,ks. some OF which Rfferward failed.
ana this proceeding was brought to COM
Del the respondent and auditor and COM
fnfssiouers to accept In settlement Of APP
peliant's accounts as treasurer certain re-
ceivers' certificates OF insoiyent banks.
The lower court sustained respondents
motion to qGash the af1dayit upon which
the application for a writ Of mandate Vas
based. aad relator stood thereon. Iudg-
ment OF dismissal was rendered and an
appeal taken.
Appellant contended. First--That the
treasurer Is not a debtor or insurer OF
money that comes into bis hands, but only
a bailee for hire or trustee Of an express
trust. which Is only responsible for the
exercise of good faith and reasonable
or constitutional inhibition against depos-
itlng such funds in banks. and that under
the circumstances IL was his duty to so
deposit, and he would be liable only for
negligence in selecting such repositories.
The statute, say the supreme court.
makes IL the duty of the county treasurer
10 receive all moneys due and aceruing to
the county and disburss the same in the
manner provided by Law. and requires him
e.fx nj her
things. that all moneys received by him
for the use OF the county shall be paid a.
the commissioners shall from time to time
direct. except where special provision IL
made by law for the payment OF such
moneys by the order Of any court or other
wise. and for the special discharge of his
duties. An examination OF all the authori-
ties has satisfied AS that while such Of
fcsrs are bailses. they are special bsilees
subject to special obligations. and that IL
is evident that ordinary law of bailment
cannot be invoked 10 determine the degree
of their responsibility. We take Il that
II il fundamental in the law OF bailments
that the amount OF care which the baiiee
is required TO take OF goods or property
intrusted 10 him may be expressly fixed
by contract. and that Il is only I'm the ab-
sence OF an express agreement that the
law presumes II 10 have been the infen-
ton OF the parties that bailee for hire
other than a common carrier or the like.
Is required 10 exercise only ordinary care
IN the custody and control OF the property
with which he Is intrusted. We think that
BY tho great weight OF authority upon the
question an officer such as a county treas
urer under the law IL held TO the rule OF
strict accountability. Concluding. tho
opinion says: The loss I'm this case was
not occasioned by an act OF God or a
public enemy, and We are not called upon
90 decide whether under the circumstances
attending such loss the officer would be
exempt from liability. The conclusion
leads TO afnrnanco or tho judgment and
renders il unnecessary 20 decide whether
the county treasurer may lawfully deposit
the funds OF his county In bank" Opinion
by Justice Gordon. Justice Hoyt dissent
ing