Title: SINDT v. DAVIS
Citation: 174 Okla. 355, 1935 OK 874, 51 P.2d 495
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: September 25, 1935

SINDT v. DAVIS Annotate this Case SINDT v. DAVIS 1935 OK 874 51 P.2d 495 174 Okla. 355 Case Number: 24726 Decided: 09/25/1935 Supreme Court of Oklahoma SINDT et al. v. DAVIS Syllabus ¶0 1. Counties -- Mandamus--Duty of County Treasurer to Register Warrant Though not Presented by Payee--Mandamus by Pledgor of Warrant to Compel Registration. Under the provisions of section 8634, C. O. S. 1921, it is the duty of the treasurer of a county, to whom a warrant is directed for payment, to register the same in a book to be kept for that purpose. There is no requirement of law that payee named in a warrant present the same for registration, but the assignor of a claim, upon which a warrant is based, having pledged the warrant to a bank to secure indebtedness, and being beneficially interested in payment of the 'warrant, may maintain an action for mandamus to compel registration of a warrant by a county treasurer. 2. Mandamus--Appeal--Erroneous Denial of Peremptory Writ--Reversal on Appeal and Rendition of Judgment Granting Writ. Where the return to an alternative writ of mandamus fails to state a valid and legal cause why the thing commanded should not be-performed by respondent, a peremptory writ of mandamus should issue, and a denial thereof and dismissal of relator's action by the trial court is error for which the cause will be reversed and the case reinstated; and, where all necessary parties are before the Supreme Court on appeal, and there remains no issue of fact, this court will reverse the case and render the judgment the trial court should have rendered, granting peremptory mandamus. Appeal from District Court, Major County; O. C. Wybrant, Judge. Action by W. H. Sindt and others, partners doing business as Asplund Construction Company for writ of mandamus against Fred E. Davis, individually and as County Treasurer of Major County. Peremptory writ denied, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed. Wilson & Wilson, for plaintiffs in error. J. Howard Lindley, for defendant in error. RILEY, J. ¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment below, vacating an alternative writ of mandamus and denying an absolute writ. The relief sought is registration of a county warrant by the county treasurer. Epitomized, the facts are: ¶2 A copartnership, consisting of Sindt, Port and Asplund, and doing business as the Asplund Construction Company, performed road construction work for Major county under a contract. When it became apparent that funds derived from a bond issue were nearing exhaustion, the county curtailed the road work so as to avoid claims in excess of cash available to pay same. The petitioners below, plaintiffs in error, completed their work, filed their claim in the amount of $ 1,191.37 with the county clerk, and directed, by assignment thereon, that the warrant therefor be issued to the First National Bank of Enid, Okla. The claim was allowed. The warrant was drawn. Funds were available with which to pay same, but the warrant was never delivered to the bank. ¶3 Mr. Sindt inquired about the warrant at the clerk's office and it was handed to him, whereupon he returned it, saying to the clerk, "Take this and keep it for me." ¶4 It appears that the warrant was presented, at the request of Mr. Sindt, to the county treasurer on the 14th day of November, 1932, for registration by the county clerk, and that the county treasurer was requested by Mr. Sindt to register the warrant ut a time when Mr. Champlin, vice president of the bank, accompanied the petitioner to the office of the county treasurer. ¶5 The trial court was of the opinion that only the holder of the warrant and payee named therein could invoke the duty enjoined by law upon the county treasurer, and that the assignor of the claim, upon which the warrant was based, was not a party in interest and could not maintain this action. (C.-M. 40.) ¶6 This is an erroneous view of the law. Section 8634, C. O. S. 1921, is the governing statute. it reads in part. "It is hereby made the duty of the treasurer of the county, * * * to whom a warrant * * * is directed for payment, to register the same in a book to be kept for that purpose * * * and when so registered, shall be returned to the officer attesting the same. No warrant * * * shall be a valid charge until registered by the treasurer of the municipality issuing the same. * * *" ¶7 There is no law requiring the payee to present a warrant for registration, but the law contemplates registration before delivery of the warrant to the payee. ¶8 The remaining question is whether the assignor of the claim, upon which the warrant was predicated, could maintain the action. The assignor established by the evidence that the warrant, when and if it was paid, would reduce his indebtedness at the bank. Section 447, C. O. S. 1921, provides in part us to the writ of mandamus: "* * * It may be issued on the information of the party beneficially interested." ¶9 In Miller v. Horton, 69 Okla. 147 , 170 P. 509, we held: "* * * The mere pledging of a promissory note or other evidence of indebtedness as collateral security for the payment of a debt does not divest the pledgor of title and vest title in the pledgee * * * 'and general ownership remains with the pledgor and only a special property passes to the pledgee'." Bank of Utica v. McKinster, 11 Wend. 473: Liner v. J. B. Watkins Land Mtg. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 68 S.W. 311; Ryan v Humphries, 50 Okla. 343, 150 P. 1106; State v. Cummings, 47 Okla. 44 , 146 P. 161. ¶10 The bank was a proper, though not a necessary, party to the action. ¶11 The action was maintainable by the petitioners below. Judgment reversed and a peremptory writ of mandamus is hereby awarded.