CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


SCHENEBECK V. MCCRARY, 298 U. S. 36 (1936)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 298 U. S. 36 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Schenebeck v. McCrary, 298 U.S. 36 (1936)

Schenebeck v. McCrary

No. 810

Jurisdictional statement distributed March 28, 1936

Decided April 13, 1936

298 U.S. 36

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

Syllabus

A taxpayer in Arkansas has no vested interest in public funds deposited by a county treasurer in a designated depositary; consequently, state legislation releasing the treasurer and his bondsmen and the bondsmen of the depositary from liability for deposits lost through the insolvency of the depositary was not in this case an impairment of the obligation of contracts.

191 Ark. 698; 87 S.W.2d 572, affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment affirming in part and in part reversing a judgment of the trial court in an action to recover county funds.

PER CURIAM.

Prior to its insolvency, the Lonoke County Bank was he duly designated depository for the public funds of Lonoke County, Ark. In November, 1934, the county court entered an order compromising the liability of the sureties on the depository bond. In December, 1934, appellant, a taxpayer of the county, brought this action, in the first count, against the county treasurer and her bondsmen, and in the second count, against the bondsmen for the depository, seeking to recover the amount of public funds on deposit in the bank when it closed.

The defense relied upon Acts No. 16 and No. 325 of the Acts of Arkansas of 1935. Act No. 16 released county treasurers and their bondsmen from liability where deposited funds had been lost by reason of the insolvency chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 298 U. S. 37

of the bank, and not through defalcation of the county treasurer. By Act No. 325, similar relief was given to the bondsmen for a county depository. Appellant contended that the legislation impaired the obligation of contracts in violation of article 1, § 10, of the Constitution of the United States.

The trial court sustained the plea of the county treasurer and her bondsmen, under Act No. 16, and overruled the plea of the bondsmen for the depository, and rendered judgment accordingly. On appeal and cross-appeal, the Supreme Court of the State affirmed the judgment with respect to the county treasurer and her bondsmen, and reversed the judgment and dismissed the cause with respect to the bondsmen for the depository, construing and sustaining the legislation invoked. The Supreme Court of the State decided that the individual taxpayers had no vested interest in the public funds in question, and hence that there was no impairment of the obligation of contracts. The state court drew a distinction between the case of such taxpayers in relation to general public funds and those who have a vested interest in the funds of an improvement district, citing Bauer v. North Arkansas Highway Improvement District No. 1, 168 Ark. 220, 224, 270 S.W. 533.

While this Court, when a question under the contract clause is raised, may examine the alleged contract in order to determine the obligations which inhere in it, we find no ground for disturbing the ruling of the state court as to petitioner's lack of a vested interest in the funds deposited. Compare Violet Trapping Co., Inc. v. Grace, 297 U. S. 119; Ingraham v. Hanson, 297 U. S. 378.

The judgment is

Affirmed.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED