Thomason, Co. Treas. v. Board of Com'rs of Delaware
THOMASON, County Treasurer, v. BOARD OF COM’RS OF DELAWARE COUNTY
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by WATTS, C.
The defendant in error, board of county commissioners of Delaware county, plaintiff below, filed its motion for writ of mandamus in the district court of Delaware county against plaintiff in error, J. D. Thomason, county treasurer, defendant below, to compel him to comply with a resolution of the board bearing date of October 8, 1918, whereby certain solvent banks' had been designated as county depositories, and none other, and rescinding all ’ resolutions, orders, etc., theretofore made relative to county deposits and depositories. The bank designated had complied with the law relative to becoming a depository, etc., notice of all of which had been served on the county treasurer, but he refused to comply *80 with the resolution, and had $20,000 of the county money deposited in a bank not so designated by the resolution. The county treasurer returned the writ, showing that on February 4, 1913, the board of county commissioners had, among others, designated the bank in which he had deposited the $20,000 as a county depository ‘(for a term of one year from date), and that he was receiving therefrom 5per cent, interest on daily balance, whereas the latter designated depositories were to pay a smaller rate of interest; that he was a servant of the people; had given a good and sufficient bond for the faithful performance of his duty, and that his action was not subject to the control of the board of county commissioners, and that it was his duty to deposit the funds in the bank paying the highest rate of interest, etc. On November 11, 1913, the court, on final hearing, granted peremptory writ against the county treasurer, from which he appeals.
But, as the time over which the controversy arose has expired, and no practical relief can be gained by a decision, the case becomes moot, and will be regarded as abstract and hypothetical, and not necessary for decision, and will be, dismissed.
Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. State, 43 Okla. 368 , 143 Pac. 37 .
By the Court: It is so ordered.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.