The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-05-30

the puphc revenue, ana emphasized b, the State prohibited the receipt of checks Tn order to prevent just such controver sies as arose in this case. This cour had been uniformly held in Alabama that 2 public officer entrusted with the collec ton of money had no authority, undei legal tender. for the debt; that 1t was tho duty of such public officer to keep what. eyer he gets in the Identical shape in
 snd if he he sssss ua Se Dd he gets, or transfers it to anyone else he commits breach of his bond and of the law, which in asease Of this kind bama, amounts to felony. and subjects
 Se had stolen s This saeds eoart Therefore, as q, by the Appellate Court, as this was an Alabama contract, made and to be per Inormed in Alabama. growing out of an
 were bedna that the and tsss
 1t was the duty of the Treasurer to keep whatever he get. in the shape in which
 evons ae sse it. and not S transfer t him if he did so. that the statute did not
 contemplate, when 1t used the words
 tbai b5ands or ,n,, nm,,oney or proceeds of bonds, "
 under any circumstances. because if he
 took check, which he could collect only
 Would w bs and m registering it
 cision was reversed, and. of course. it Is
 not the law fin this court. refer to these
 snhings wha that you may understand that
 what mas been subsequently, ruled in
 this case, is in no wise Inconsistent with
 Ine opinion which the Court of Appeals
 The req. Issue on the merits of the case, when 1t went to the Court of Ap- peals was. to use the language of the
 brief of the plaintiff in error, that "the rulings of the court below "assert the
 what may occur with respect to the fund arising from the sale of $100,000 of road and bridge bonds the defendants were not
 liable unless Cochran, as County Treas
 .her.,ae ,rer, actually received & the currency
 tach to any act falling short of such
 actual receipt or money" This was the
 main contention contested in the Court of
 Appeals. The other issues were inci-
 dental and arose on pleadings on different
 held that this court took a too narrow
 and technical construction of the Ala
 hama statute, as to what constituted
 money or proceeds of bonds. The
 quote its language: ''The use of checks,
 certificates of deposit and other commer-
 cial instruments is so universal, and so
 essential in larg etransactions that we
 cannot assume that the Legislature of Alabama meant to forbid their use in the
 negotiation and sale of the bonds. If Josiah Morris & Co.,, had had the coin on hand to pay for the bonds in question. the transaction would have been con- ducted by thexuse of checks or certificates of deposit. and we think without any violation of the terms of the statute If silver coin had been in the bank as the basis of the transaction, it's weight. about 6.546 pounds, would have made the use Of checks or certificates necessary to con- veniently complete the transaction. We think, therefore. that cheeks or cert- hcates of deposit, received in good faith by the Board of Revenue, and delivered to the Treasurer or delivered by direction of the Board of Revenue to the Treasurer, would be funds or money or the proceeds of the sale of the bonds in the hands of the Treasurer. The check for the price of the bonds in the hands of the Treasu- Ter. he having receipted for the same as money, was funds or money in the hands
 within the meaning of the statute. It was not his duty to keep the check, but to have it cashed and to keep the coin or notes received on the check. In doing this he should conform to the law of Alabama and keep the coin or notes under his actual personal control, as for example in his own safe or on special deposit" This statement of the law by the Court of Appeals constitutes the key note of the principle declared in its opin- ion. The effect of the opinion, as the extract above plainly declares, is not that the check was money ipso facto, or to be treated as such under all circumstances The evident purpose of the court in it's arguments was to show, that there was
 error in the lower court holding that no obligation could be incurred upon the
 bond by the receipt of the check. It's decision on that point was, that the check of Revenue put duty upon the Treasurer to collect, and that, therefore, he could
 be liable for not collecting the check though 1t was not in fact money in the .fVfnoV Vsxy zn 1ernsa Tkc
 tainly was not to declare that the receipt of the check by the Treasurer, under the~ circumstances here disclosed, ipsc facto made money out of the check in such sense that the Treasurer was chargeable absolutely. as for money had and receivel, regardless of subsequent events, or his subsequent dealings with
 the check The irresistible inference
 from the decision is. that the check in the hands of the Treasurer only put the duty on him to convert the check into money. The Court of Appeals certainly did not intend that the mere receipts of the check of and in itself, charged the Treasurer, as such, with so much money had and received; for the court goes on explicitely to declare that 1t was his duty to cash the check, to get the money upon 1t, and put 1t in his safe or on special deposit, even if he should have to take the 5,54e pounds of silver. Tho Treasurer being bound, when so directed by the Board of Revenue, to receive the check, as the Court of Appeals declares, and thereby makes the law for this case
 1t was his duty to receive 1t and to use the utmost diligence to collect the check, but the decision is not that he was absolutely held as having received money. The facts of this case illustrate plainly the injustice of any other view of the opinion, and the Court of Appeals shows plainly that it did not mean to direct this court otherwise. The check was delivered to the Board of Revenue and received by the Treasurer after banking hours. It was the dTty of the Treasurer sale of the bonds If the bank had not opened it's doors next morning, 1t was certainly not the intention of the Court of Appeals to hold that the Treasurer, who was without fault in taking the check, was to be treated just as though he had that much lctual money fin hani. no matter what became of the bank. or whether he could have collected the money from it. That court never in- tended to declare, that by taking the check the Treasurer became liable for actual money. If he was without fault in not getting the check cashed. It meant only that he must use diligence to get actual money. It did not mean that the check was actual money in his hands; for If 1t was, he already had the money, and he could not collect from another that which he had already collected. The Court of Appeal in its opinion, was deal Ing with a case where it was alleged that It was well known at the time of the execution of the official bonds sued on, and the funds placed in the bank subject In tha check nf KOihn dnnnfy rNha