The Robesonian., 1917-09-17
SUIT OVER DRAINAGE FUNDS

Judge Bond Rules That Back and Ja-.
cob Swamps Drainage District
Funds Are Part of Courty- Funds
ard Must be Deposited in County
Depository-First National Bank
ard Drainage Commissioners Will
Carry Case to Supreme Court and
t. Nav Get as Far as U. S. Su-
preme Court-Nice Point of Law
Involved
An interesting case, involving a
nice point of law, was heard by
Judge w. M. Bond at the court house
Thursday afternoon and evening, suit
of the county commissioners and the
National Bank of Lumberton, county
depository, to compel Sheriff R. p.
Lewis and the First National Bank
of Lumberton to deposit in the coun-
tv depository funds of the Back and
Jacob swamps drainage district
Judge Bond ruled against the Defend /
ant bank and ordered that funds OF
the drainage district be deposited IN :
the county depository along with
other county funds. Appeal was TAX
en- by the drainage commissioners
and the defendant bank to the su-
pren1e court, and Mr.. R. c. Lawrence,
/ Of counsel for the defendant, says
that as constitutional questions are set
up the case may get as far as the
! supreme court Of the United States.
The plaintiffs were represented by
the law firm of Mclean, Varser and
Mclean and County Attorney E. j.
Britt, the law firms of Mcintyre,
Lawrence & Proctor and Johnson &
Johnson representing the defendants.
i An act passed by the Legislature
of 1917 abolished the office of coun-
, ty treasurer for Robson and au-
| designate IS depository for the funds
: Of the county, to perform the duties
l heretofore performed by the treas
= urer, the bank that should offer to
pay the highest interest on average
Of Lumberton was the only bank hat
submitted a bid, offering to pay 2
per cent on daily balance, and It vas
:; designated county depository. The
d National Bank made demand on the
3 First National Bank for the funds
of the drinage district, which demand
was refused. The reasons for this
refusal and the contention of the
n defendants are set forth in a state
ment by Mr.. R. c. Lawrece, Of coun-
sci for the defendants, as follows:
:. "On August 1, 1915, the first in
t stallment of the Back Swamp ard
}. Jacob Swamp drainage district bonds
= amounting to $4,000 would fall
u due. There was no money
to pay the installment with, because
: the taxes would not be collected un-
e til the fall of 1915, whereas the bonds
e fell due on AUGUST I, 1915. On this
: accoart returning bo!,ds had to b;
II issued amounting to $4,000. Before
l. the act was passed authorizing tht
= issue of the refunding bonds, the
n drainage commissioners tried to ge
}; bids for them but could get only 8;
q per cent of par value. The Legisla
4, ture Of 1915 authorized the issue o:
u the $4,000 refunding bonds and t.
q make them attractive this act con
e tanned a provision that the commits
II sloners could loan out all amount
o collected by the sheriff until sacl
T. time as they would be needed to pa,
D. installment Of principal Or interest
Sc The drainage commissioners adver
.; tised these bonds for sale, the motto
"a containing the statement that who
IS ever bought the bonds would b
m awarded the deposit Of the dramas
ID moneys until such time as such fund
* should be needed to pay interest O
e. principal on the outstanding bonds
ty The then Bank of Lumberton refus
ed to make any bid at all for tn
ne bonds. The First National Bank
g in consideration Of the offer Of tn
Mt drainage commissioners to deposit a
u. drainage funds in that bank unit
ef such time as such funds should b
at needed to pay principal or interes
OF hid par for the bonds and also pai
IL 5000 in expense. This was $500
en- more than the market value of tn
r. bonds at that time.
IS "ln 1917 the Legislature passed a
act authorizing the county commi
OF sioners to deposit all public funo
g with the bank paying the highc
OF rate Of interest. Under this act II
er; National Bank of Lumberton offe
cd to pay per cent and was awar,
"; ed the deposit. They made derhar
OF on the First National Bank for II
er- drainage funds, which demand W;
refused for the following reasons:
ION 81. That the First National Ba,
was entitled to the drainage fun,
ny under the contract made b
10 tween the bank and drai
3re age commissioners in 1915. u
lIle der faith whereof the bank had pa
nc- $4,000 for the bonds more than t
the market value thereof.
40. "2. That the statute of 1917 d
ON no not embrace the drainage funt
That this is shown by the fact tn
INK altho Robeson county has had az
al similar to the act Of 1917 ever sin
1911, no bank has ever claimed tn
INK the drainage funds came under su
al act. That even when the Bank
Liumberton was awarded the dept
teo it under a similar act it did r
claim that it was entitled to It
ca drainage funds.
MI.