[DOWNLOAD] "State Ex Rel. Case v. Bolles Et Al." by Supreme Court of Montana " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State Ex Rel. Case v. Bolles Et Al.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 29, 1925
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 67 KB
Description
Mandamus ? Counties ? Registered Warrants ? Call for Payment ? Time Limit ? Failure to Present in Time ? Effect ? Appeal ? Implied Findings. Findings ? When Implied. 1. On appeal from the judgment in a proceeding in mandamus, where the court did not make findings of fact, the facts necessary to support the judgment will be deemed to have been made under the doctrine of implied findings. Counties ? Registered Warrants ? Failure to Present for Payment Within Time Limit ? Effect. 2. While county warrants are not negotiable instruments in the sense of the law-merchant, and the transferee takes them subject to all legal and equitable defenses to them which existed in the hands of the payee, failure of the transferee to re-present a registered warrant within sixty days after it was called for payment (Rev. Codes, sec. 4758) does not render it invalid and may not be relied upon as a defense in an action to compel payment. - Page 55 Same ? Registered Warrants ? Failure to Present for Payment Within Time ? Statute ? Construction. 3. Held, that the word "may" appearing in section 4758, Revised Codes, which provides that the board of county commissioners may on application of the holder of a warrant who failed to re-present a warrant within sixty days after issuance of the call for its payment, order the county treasurer to pay it, means must or shall. Same ? Penalty for Failure to Present Registered Warrants Within Specified Time ? Loss of Interest. 4. The only penalty a holder of a registered warrant incurs, under section 4758, supra, for failure to re-present it for payment within sixty days after issuance of the call is loss of interest thereon. Same ? Failure to Make Timely Demand for Payment of Registered Warrant ? Insolvent Bank ? Effect on Countys Liability. 5. Where the board of county commissioners had wrongfully refused to issue an order for the payment of a warrant not re-presented for payment until after the sixty-day period provided for in section 4758, Revised Codes, had expired, and thereafter the bank in which its funds were deposited became insolvent, the county was not discharged from liability thereon under section 8593 by the holders neglect to make timely demand for payment, since the detriment suffered by it was traceable to its improper refusal and not to the holders failure to act. Same ? Warrants ? Where Payable. 6. County warrants must be presented for payment to the county treasurer, and he must pay in cash or by check acceptable to the holder; he is without authority to issue a call for the payment of registered warrants "at any of the banks of the county," and county depositories may not pay out county funds to themselves or others without a check from the treasurer. Same ? Warrants on Fund Abolished by Law ? Payment Out of General Fund, When. 7. Warrants drawn upon a county fund which was abolished by Act of the legislature after their issuance, provision being made for their payment out of the general fund, were properly ordered paid out of the latter fund.