The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-05-30
STATE SUPREME COURT
One Opinion Handed Down-Fif-
teen Cases Assigned.
ONE APPEAL DISMISSED
The Lower Court Sustained in the Case
OF James Greedy VS.. Cascade
County-Suffers From His
own Neglect.
Special Dispatch to the Standard.


Helena, May 29.-The supreme court
handed down one opinion to-day, dis
missed one appeal and assigned 10
cases for hearing, The case decided
was James Greedy VS.. Cascade county,
an appeal from the district court OF
that county. The action grew out of
the suspension of the Merchants Ma
tional bank of Great Falls in 1898. Gree
ly had the contract for keeping the
county poor and on June IA, 1898, he
received from the county commission
ers a warrant for $1,14S.63, balance due.
The warrant was drawn up on the poor
fund.- which was amply able to meet
it. He presented the warrant to the
county treasurer and received a check
for the full amount drawn upon the
Merchants bank. Greedy claimed that
he presented the check to the bank,
but that it was dishonored because the
bank was insolvent. This the defend
ant county denied, claiming that the
bank was solvent and that by reason
of the plaintiffs failure to present the
check promptly he lost the money, and
as the bank subsequently closed its
doors on July "a of the same year, the
county also lost the money for which
the check was drawn. Greedy inStl-
tuted suit in the district court against
the county to collect the money after
the bank had closed, and after he had
been unable to establish his claim. The
trial showed, among other things, that
the plaintiff carried the check around
in his pocket from the day he receiv-
ed it, June Is, until July "a, the day
the bank closed, and never presented
it, while the bank was open; that the
county, through its treasurer, laid
claim to and was allowed to prove the
countys claim for the amount appear
ing on the books of the bank to its
credit, and that three dividends of 10
per cent. each had been paid to the
county before Greedy commenced suit.
Counsel for the county moved the court
to render judgment for the defendant
on the ground that the plaintiff could
not maintain an action against the
county because the county, through it's
commissioners, had already audited
and allowed his claim and had caused
a warrant to be drawn and delivered
to him. Greedy also had a suit against
the county for $540 claimed as the
result of a contract, which amount he
claimed had been dsallowed by the
commissioners in March, 1894. A suit
to enforce collection of this amount
was also commenced. The county
plaintiff having failed to file his claim
within six months. and the lower court
sustained it. Greedy then appealed
both cases. The supreme court aftirms
the action of the lower court in both
the first and second cases of action.
The court below held that the right
to appeal from the decision of the board
of county commissioners, given by sec
ton 764 of the 5th division of the COM
piled statutes, 1887. and by section 4,2SS
of the political code, excludes the main
tenance of an independent action on
the rejected demand, says the court,
but in our opinion the owner of such
claim is not confined or limited to the
remedy by appeal. He may pursue that
remedy or he may bring an action upon
the disallowed claim. His privilege Is
to take either course, to appeal to the
district court within 80 days or to sue
upon the claim within six months after
the rejection. This view accords with
the general rule and Is in harmony
with section SIT of the code of civil
procedure, as well as with the practice
hitherto prevailing in Montana. In the
proper proceeding theplaintiff would be
entitled to recover the amount for
which the warrant was drawn, less
such sum as equals the actual loss or
injury, If any sustained by the county
by reason of his delay in presenting the
check to the bank. Instead of requiring
the treasurer to pay the warrant in
cash, as was his right, he elected to
accept the check of that officer in con-
ditional payment The funds upon
which the check was drawn, and out Of
which it was payable, were in the Gus
tody of the treasurer as bailee and
trustee; they belonged to the county.
The plaintiff in taking the check dealt
with the county as represented by its
treasurer, and not with thei treasurer
as a private person. Under these cir
cumstances it is difficult to perceive
any reason why the plaintiff should be
heard to claim exemption from the OBJ
legation to make due presentation Of
the check or should be permitted to es-
cape the consequences of his neglect to
do so. We are of the opinion that the
same rule in that regard must be ap-
piled to the plaintiff in his transactions
with the county through its treasurer,
as would be applicable to the ordinary
case of a check holder whose unreal
sonable delay in demanding payment
of the bank results in the loss or injury
to the drawer"
Upon motion of counsel for the ap-
pellant, the dismissed case of Kirk,
trustee respondent, VS.. Harlow ct al.
appellants, appealed from the district
court of Lewis and Clarke county.
G. c. Hurley of Nebraska was ad-
mitted to practice to-day upon motion
of E. A. Carlton. Mr.. Hurley will
probably locate in Billings.
The following assignments of cases
were made, several of which are impor-
tant actions, notably the Forest and
Macglnnis case and the case of the
-----~--------