Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
FROM TODAY'S MORNING JOURNAL
TREASURER MAY FILE A SUIT
WILL BE GOVERNED BY ADVICE OF SPILLMAN.
Test Case to Determine Liability of Official Bonds of Two Former Treasurers May Be Started.
Whether the state shall institute for the of $4,000 of state funds on deposit in the falled National bank Carroll is being considered by State Treasurer Stebbins He accepted the deposit conditionally when he took his office the first of the year It accepted subject to collection The supreme court decision July holding that the personal bonds by bankers to the state was not liable for the money was really an certificates of deposit and not state de posit and the bond which had been approved by Attorney General Spillman, Charles W Pool, secre. tary of state and Charles W Bryan then liable only for deposit of state funds. not for what proved to be, according to transaction between Robinson, state treasurer. and D an in certificates of deposit issued by the failed State Treasurer Stebbins sald Monday, when asked how he intends proceed to collect the money, that be would act upon the advice Attorney General Spillman's department and that he would have obtain an opinion from that department before he could what course would pursued suit against the bond of either Robinson the ceiver the failed bank may contemplated. according to discusthe capitol The bank alleged to have few assets sight court, in deciding against recovery the state from the bank bondsmen, gave the state judgment against the bank receiver The bond of former Treasurer Cropsey for five years and this period expires next January. The state has certificates of deposit for the $4,000 against the failed bank. 1922 Treasurer Cropsey had $12,000 deposit, guaranteed the Lion Bonding company. When the bonding failed he demanded money The bank could not secured his consent substitution personal bond signed by Thomas, John Davis, Alfred Thomas and Thomas Later paid off the dePosit, and still later received $4,000 more from the state as deposit. the personal bond being continued At the expiration of his term office Mr Cropsey held these four certificates for $1,000 each, and settlement his successor, Robinson, retained these his own property. He accounted for money on deposit by giving Robinson his personal check. days later he had the certificates renewed by the bank, and he turned these in to Robmson, who gave him his The court held that this constituted an investment of state funds deposit of money the bank by Robinson during his term of office. and as the deposi tory bond was given to repay only deposits belonging the state, the signers are not liable for the pay. ment of the certificates. The bank, however. having issued them, must pay. and judgement was entered against H receiver. The court says Robinson never made deposit. and the bond was to repay deposits made by Robin and did not secure the of renewal certificates, the bondsmen cannot be held.