The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-03-10
Matter Remanded to Judge JOneS'S Court. Montgomery County Will Get New Trial in Matter Involving About $1Oo, ,ooo-Judge
 Shelby Wrote the
 Opinion.

of Appeals at New Orleans reversing the Circuit Court for the Middle District of Alabama in the case of the County of Montgomery against J. J. Cochran, will be read with interest in Montgomery. The opinion is by Judge D. D. Shelby, and the cause is remanded to the court of Judge Thomas G. Jones with instructions to grant a new trial.
 The case grew out of the failure of the banking house of Josiah Morris & Co.,, in which bank J. J. Cochran. as Treasurer of Montgomery County, had on deposit something over $10O, 900.
 The defendant contended that a worth- less check had been presented to him in payment of an issue of $100,000 of bonds, The lower court practically held that check was not negotiable paper and this contention was overthrown by the higher court.
 The full text of the opinion reversing and remanding the case Is as follows: Before Pardee Mccormick and Shelby, Circuit Judges.
 Shelby, Circuit Judge, after stating facts of the case delivered the opinion of the court as follows:
 The foregoing facts show that Mont gomery County has lost the price of $100,- | 900 of its bonds. The Treasurer and the | surety on his bond, admitted that the | former gave a receipt for the purchase money of the bonds and charged himself on his account with the same, claim that he cannot be held for a breach of his | bond because he never actually received the price in coin or bank bills. It was not incumbent on the Treasurer, they contend, to safely keep the proceeds of | the sale because he never received them; | and that as to the fund in question. there could be no breach of the bond ex- cept failure to safely keep the fund. The plaintiff in error contends that the Treas urer did receive the proceeds of sale, and that he failed to keep them.
 | The defendants position is based on l Section of the act which authorized the | issuance of the bonds. It is there pro- vided that the Board of Revenue is au- | thorized to sell the bonds. and that "the l proceeds of said bonds shall be paid over to and kept by the Treasurer of said County" and that the Treasurer shall be responsible for the safe keeping of all of the proceeds accuring from the | sale of said bonds which may come into his hands in his official capacity, the same as other County funds or money in | 1900-1, p. 703. It is asserted by the de- | fendants in error that 1t was the duty of the Board of Revenue to get the pro ceeds of the bonds in such shape that when they paid them over, the Treas urer could keep them until disbursement; |" | and the keynote to the defence is that | the Treasurer had no right to receive anything but coin or bank bills as the l
 Intention of Legislature.
 These contentious depend on the mean ing of the act Was 1t the intention of | the Legislature that no transaction with
 the Board of Revenue and the purchaser
 of the bonds and the Treasurer should be permitted except by the use of coin or
 bank bills? The statute must be con.
 strued in the light of commercial usage
 and common knowledge of business trans.
 actions. The word money when used
 t1 -A@A.
 coin and bank bills. Such a construc.
 Fetridge. s4 Wis. 47s. Sis, would be ex.
 tremely technical, and Is, we think, un-
 called for. Money is generic term
 and may mean, not only legal tender coin
 and currency. but also any other circu.
 lating medium or any instruments or
 tokens in general use in the commercial
 world as the representatives of value"
 And it was held that a certificate of de-
 posit was money within the meaning oi
 a statute.
 In Taylor V. Robinson, 4 Fed. ss1
 Judge Mccormick said: The term
 money Is used to designate the whole
 volume of the medium of exchange rec.
 ognized by the custom of merchants and the laws of the country, just -as the term
 land designates all real estate"
 In Allibone V. Anes, g s. Oak. "A, S1 the court applies this definition to a cer.
 tihcate of deposit: When the certificate
 of deposit was delivered to plaintiff, and
 accepted by him, 1t had all the character. istics of money. Its return to the bank
 amount of currency. It was-the parties
 so treating it-precisely the same as il
 the Treasurer had received the coin and
 again deposited 1t. To say that if a per.
 son deposits draft or certificate of de , posit with bank, and received credit
 for the amount of 1t, he does not make g
 deposit of that amount, is simply absurd in view of the modern methods of trans acting business"
 ) And there are other authorities to tn, same effect, showing that the words , funds or money" and proceeds O
 sale," as used in the act should not b.
 confined in their meaning to coin anC
 bank bills. State V. Krug, F Wash. 2SS Byron V. Bradeteth, IS L. R. Ed. Cases ATS; State V. Hill, q Neb. 456; People V
 Mckinney, 10 Mich. 55; Bork V. People
 16 Hun. (N. Y.) 476.
 Use of Checks in Business. , The use of checks, certificates of de posit and other commercial instrument Is so universal and so essential in larg transactions that we cannot assume tha
 the Legislature of Alabama meant to for 5 of the bonds. If Josiah Morris and Com l pany had had the coin on hand to pa,
 for the bonds in question, the transaction
 would have been conducted by the us of checks or certificates of deposit an we think. without any violation of tn
 terms of the statute. If silver coin hai been in bank as the basis of the transac ton its weight fabout 6546 pounds } would have been made the use of check
 or certificates necessary to convenient.
 complete the transaction. We think therefore, that checks or certificates O deposit received in good faith by tn , Board of Revenue and delivered to tn Treasurer or delivered by direction O
 the Board of Revenue to the Treasure
 would be funds or money" or tn
 proceeds of sale" of the bonds in tn,
 hands of the Treasurer. The check fol the price of the bonds in the hands O Q the Treasurer, he having receipted fol
 the same as money, was funds o I money in his hands within the meaning of the statute. It was not his duty tt
 keep the check, but to have 1t casheC l and to keep the coin or notes received or
 the check. In doing this, he should con l form to the law of the State and keel
 the coin or notes under his actual per sonal control, as, for example, in his owl
 safe, or on personal deposit
 It Is conceded to be the settled law il , Alabama, that if the check was none,
 in the Treasurer's hands, that 1t was g conversion to make a general deposit O
 1t in a bank Alston V. State 92 Ala. 124
 If there was reluctance in applying thi . rule generally to deposit in solven . bank, 1t should be applied without Ques ' ton under the circumstances under whic l the Treasurer deposited this fund.