Bardsley v. Sternberg

Citations

• 18 Wash. 612
• 52 P. 251
• 1898 Wash. LEXIS 601

Syllabus

<p>MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—PAYMENT OF WARRANTS — WHAT CONSTITUTES— CITY FUNDS — AUTHORITY OP TREASURER TO RECEIVE AND CONTROL — DEPOSIT IN BANK — EVIDENCE AS TO STATE OF FUNDS-</p> <p>The act of a city treasurer in buying the city’s warrants and paying for them with city funds does not constitute a payment, when the warrants are thus cashed out of their proper turn without any view of treating them as paid by the treasurer, but for the purpose of reselling them to investors and placing the funds realized from their sale to the city’s credit. (Scott, C. J.,- and Reavis, J., dissent.</p> <p>The report of the finance committee of a city council, which by charter is charged with the duty of examining the books and accounts of the city treasurer and comptroller and ascertaining-the amount of cash on hand, is, after adoption by the city council, competent evidence as to the state of the city funds for the period covered by the report. (Scott, C. J., and Reavis, J., dissent.)-</p> <p>A municipal corporation can act only through legally constituted officers and agents; hence, the act of its treasurer in. receiving money and placing same to the city’s credit upon the reissuance of warrants bought by him, constitutes a receipt by the city itself of the proceeds of the warrants sold. . (Scott, C. J., and Reavis, J., dissent.)</p> <p>The depositing by a city treasurer of public funds intrusted to his keeping in a bank for safe-keeping, subject to repayment on demand, is neither a loan nor an investment of the funds, and hence not illegal within the contemplation of the statute making it criminal and illegal for a city treasurer to make a profit by loaning or otherwise using such funds contrary to law.</p>