Omaha daily bee., 1903-01-08

with the forms Of law, and in harmony
Nth the system OF accounts adopted 6y
issued 4 was Perfeotly legitimate that u
should be paid by a check drawn by the
general fund u the state in the hands Of
Its depository.
Position of the Bank.
The defendant bank. as before stated.
was a state depository. The depository
law provides as follows: "All such deposits
shall be subject to payment when de-
Check and also requires that the deposit
ment Of said deposit when demanded by
the state treasurer on his check at any
IL Is conceded by the state that the de-
PENDANT bank in the payment Of the check
violated no duty IL owed to the state as
custodian Of public funds.
The unlawful act upon which this suit Ia
grounded IL not the payment OF the states
money. on the Barley check, nor for the
money as agent for the Chemical National
bank, and It's application ~ payment e
the state treasurer TO pay the obligation
OF the state, represented by warrants, IL
HoubIo seem that me defendant eSnk ought
from him and applying II in payment Of
the warrant. unless It had notice or knowl-
sdge that ne was using the states tun1s
1t is one Of tho contentious OF heystate
that the recital IN the warrant "f6r to
reimburse state sinking fund" was a suei,
Client notice to the defendants that the war
rant was not a state obligation and was
character. wSPRfiie the n Recital al in ne lmla SaTl
rant might be pfims facie notice of the
illegal character. in. the. hands of anyone
but. the !st9te or its. Trustees, the testimony
ditelosed that neither the defendant bank
no knowledge OF the ~recitals contained
therein. .A
FeFm Of the warrant.
In general form and appearance It was
Ike All other warrants issued by the, state,
ported on its lace To- have been ISSUED by
authority of law. The only thing TO dis
iii guish It was the words written, 10 black
state Sinking fund.- Upon the back or the
warrant there Is iHdorsed the name ~ef J.
clear that this endorsement was not upon
the warrant at the time of It's payment,
nor was the epdorsement In tine handwrit-
Ing of j. II. Willard, nor was II placed
tlIercnn with his knowledge or direction.
When the case was brought before this
versed upon the theory that the question Of
notice or knowledge on the part OF the de-
t Sas a pTS6 OF the fpbt 81 aSs%ftt n the he warrant ;Sr2
This was done upon the last trial and the
jury found for the defendants. The, hnd-
Ing OF the jury on the question OF NOTICE or
knowledge OF the illegal character Of the
warrant Is eoneluslye upon this report
an action of conversion the motive which
prompts a person to receive, dispose of or
appropriate property to his own use is en-
tirely immaterial,- where the property had
been taken without the knowledge or con
sent of the owner, and the case Of Cook
are cited in support OF. this contention. The
theory upon which. the case is cited pro-
ceeds, is that the moving party was an in
termeddler, acting without real or apparent
authority.
J~uatiacation for the Act.
While the rule in Crook v. Murroe, supra.
Il. correct in the abstract, Il has no appllca-
ton to a case where the act of conversion
manner authorized by the owner Of the
property or his agent or servant having
one would contend that IL the owner of
property delivered II 70 a person and re-
quested him TO dispose OF it in a prescribed
manner and the request was compiled with
that an action of conversion would lie
against such person, and the same principle
OF law applies where the duly empowered
aud lawful agent having the control and
possession of the property. makes. the re-
qnest and gives the direction. The state
states funds; he was the duly elected and
qualified agent of the state; he was au-
states warrants; he directed the pi oceeds
81 the check to be applied In paymentSof
s tine Ta t5s t.r anS r. w pgrS so sep Il his re re
parent scope OF nlhsrity and the g
tons is projected uniesSsAt had notice 5or
Knowledge that a breach 81 trust was being
committed by the treasurer by an improper
application OF the state's funds in payment
Of a warrant which is not a valid oblisa-
tion OF the state.
the warrant to the defendant bank was
made in the usual course of business and
Chemical National bank before any claim
was made by the state OF any knowledge
brought to the bank or any Of its officers
OF the state in the hands of the holder.
Transaction All Correct.
While the payment of the check and the
credits to the Chemical National bank was
a mere matter Of bookkeeping the prac-
same as though the money had been paid
over to BARLEY on a. check, and he In turn
had paid II to The bank In payment of the
warrant. and the bank had paid It over to
the National bank.
The rule is well established that where in
due course Of business money is trans
ferrsS 20 an honest tskeT who receives it
the part Of the payor, he would acquire a
good title thereto as against the true
So FAR, we have considered the case on
the theory that the warrant was valid and
the Issuance OF II constituted the proper
method Of transferring the money from the
result would be the same II the warrant
be regarded as though not properly issued.
The fact remains that the state by its
officer adopted that method Of making the
transfer The facts gre undisputed thai
the defendants had no actual notice or
knowledge of the purpose for which the
warrant was drawn, and as they had no
notice Of the ~recitals on the. face of the
warrants, but paid the check. and applied
the money by the directions OF the state
treasurer la the Utmost good faith, they are
protected from liability
Good Faith OF Defendant.
This was evidently the theory upon
which Judge Sullivan proceeded In the for
mer' opinion, for IN n he recognizes the
Importance OF good faith on the part Of tho
defendants. and held that knowledge on
the part OF the defendants as to innrma,
tives in the warrant was a proper question
TO be submitted TO the jury II would
doubtless be different had the defendants
known Of the purpose for which the war
rant was given. "
The theory upon which the case was
tried in the court below inVolved~the cues
tion OF motive or knowledge on the part oil
the defendants OF the unlawful purpose e
which the states funds were being applied
The testimony was clear and undisputeC
hat the bank officials did not read thI
warrant, It's general form and appearance,
was like other warrants issued by thu
FED THE PROFESSOR.
rhis One Had "DFeams More TerribI,
Than visions OF the The COmet.'"
&N..r -