Railroad National Bank v. City of Lowell

| Mass. | Jan 15, 1872

Wells, J.

That the city is not liable for the money as a loan, because it was advanced to its treasurer or paid upon his checks, is fully settled by the decisions in Lowell Five Cents Savings Bank v. Winchester, 8 Allen, 109; Benoit v. Conway, 10 Allen, 528; and Dickinson v. Conway, 12 Allen, 487.

It was also decided in Kelley v. Lindsey, 7 Gray, 287, that money advanced on account of the defendant to one in his employ, but who had no authority to borrow money for him, created no debt against the defendant, although advanced for the purpose of being expended in his business and to pay his debts, and actually so applied. That decision appears to us to be conclusive against the plaintiff in this case.

In Dill v. Wareham, 7 Met. 438, cited by the plaintiff, the money was paid into the treasury of the town in pursuance of a contract made by authority of a vote of the town.

In Atlantic Bank v. Merchants Bank, 10 Gray, 532, and Skinner v. Merchants' Bank, 4 Allen, 290, the money came into the actual possession and control of the defendant bank. The legal possession of money received by the officers of a bank, in the usual mode, is in the corporation, and not in the officers in whose charge and manual control it is intrusted. Commonwealth v. Tuckerman, 10 Gray, 173.

The treasurer of a city or town is an independent accounting officer, by statute made the depositary of the moneys of the city or town. Gen. Sts. c. 18, §§ 54, 59 ; c. 19, § 2. The legal possession of the specific moneys in his hands, from whatever source, is in him. Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112. Coleraine v. Bell, 9 Met. 499. All moneys of the city or town he holds as its property, and exclusively for its use. But he holds them by virtue of his public official authority and duty, and not merely as the agent or servant of a corporation.

The fact that the money in this case went into the hands of the treasurer, and was placed in the drawer provided by the city for his use in keeping the funds of the city, is not enough to charge the defendant with liability.

The result is, therefore, that the defendant is entitled to judgment.