I do not think the place of business of one conducting a private bank is a bank within the meaning of Act 99, Public Acts of 1909. A somewhat similar question was before the court in the case of the City of DuQuoin vs. Kelly, 176 Ill. 218. An ordinance was passed by the city requiring the treasurer to keep the city funds in a regularly organized bank. It was held that the ordinance contemplated a bank organized under the state or national banking law and not a private bank owned by an individual. The court said: "We are of the opinion that the term 'regularly organized bank,' in the City and Village act, means a bank organized either under the state law or the act of Congress, and that it was not intended by the legislature that a city officer who has given bond for the safe keeping of the funds in his hands should be required to deposit them in a private bank. There would seem to be no more reason for that than there would be for turning the funds over to a private individual. It is true, provision is made that such banker or bankers shall give bond; but we do not think this alters the case." I believe as was said by the court in this case, that there is no more authority for depositing the public funds in a private bank than there is for loaning them out to an individual, and the fact that security is required to be given makes no difference. I am of the opinion, therefore, that the Board of Supervisors cannot lawfully designate a private bank as a depository of county funds, under the provisions of Act 99, Public Acts of 1909. Very respectfully yours, (Signed) FRANZ C. KUHN, Attorney General. |