Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-02-06
COURT DECISIONS.
DioESTED BY w. B. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virginian-Pilot)
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
BUCK v. GUARANroRs CO.

u.
Supreme Court of Appeals Of Virginia
January is, 1900.
THE STATE TREASURER is NOT
LIABLE TO GARNIsHMENT BY
A FOREIGN CREDITOR OF AN
INSURANCE COMPANY, WHICH
HAS DEPOSITED BONDS IN THE
'TREASURERS HANDS AS RE-
QUIRED BY LAW.
The case appears from the opinion of
the court
The court says:
The questions raised by this record
have been settled adversely TO the
Plaintiff In error by the decision of this
court In Rollo V. Ins. Co., % Graft. 5O9
It Is there held that the Treasurer of
the State who holds bonds of Il foreign
insurance company, doing business in
the State under authority of law, is not
liable ito be summoned as garnishee by
a foreign creditor of the insurance
company.
That n public officer cannot be made
liable by attachment at the suit of an
individual. for funds in his hands
clothed with a trust under the author
ity of a public law.
That where the insurance company
has ceased to do business in the State.
and dts liabilities to the citizens OF the
State have been satisfied or terminated,
the bonds in the hands of the Treas
urer cannot be attached by n foreign
creditor; but they must be delivered
py the Treasurer to the company.
The essential facts in the cases ait
bar and in that cited are the same, and
no nd dnl IA, &c
ment. to the Conclusive force and eff
feet OF the able opinion of Judge Sta
PIES In that case, which would have
been quite as appropriate had 1t been
delivered In the cases under considera-
Ton. 1t is. therefore, useless to repeat
here what has been so we'll said there.
The fact that the company. in these
cases. has made an assignment does
not effect the settled law that thc
Treasurer cannot be garn!sheed: the
bonds arc still in his hands, clothed
With n trust under the authority of a.
public law, to be disposed of by him
in no other manner than that pro-
vided by the law creating the trust and
prescribing his duties in respect there
to- Nor does 1T in any way alter the
rule because n chancery suit has been
Drought. in pursuance OF section 1874
of chapter fftythree of the Code, to
enforce the rights of creditors rs pro-
vided in that chapter. The law fixes
the power and duty of the Treasurer
He holds the securities in trust TO he
administered. first for the people OF
Virginia designated by the law. and
then for the company making the de-
post, and neither he nor the courts
have the power to divert the fund from
the distinction prescribed by the law
of its creation. Rollo V. Ins. Co., supra,
p. SIG.
The contention that the punishment
of the cities Of Richmond and Norfolk.
with tho Treasurer of the State. is
sufficient to support the attachments.
is mol tenable. The agreed facts show
that there is no liability upon these
cities, or either of them, except that
which arises as obligors In the bonds
deposited with the Treasurer of Vir-
ginia under the provision of chapter
nfty-thrce of the Code. There could.
Therefore, have been no judgment
against either of said cities in favor
If the plaintiff. Affirmed.