In re House Resolution Relating to House Bill No. 349
Supreme Court of Colorado
The matter submitted to the supreme court for consideration appears in the communication presented, as follows: “Whereas, it is a mooted question whether the passage of bill No. 319, as amended, would so take from the hands of the state treasurer the funds of the state as to relieve said treasurer, and the sureties upon his official bond, from liability to the state for the loss of any funds deposited in accordance with the provisions of said bill; and whereas, the question…
Read the full summary
The matter submitted to the supreme court for consideration appears in the communication presented, as follows: “Whereas, it is a mooted question whether the passage of bill No. 319, as amended, would so take from the hands of the state treasurer the funds of the state as to relieve said treasurer, and the sureties upon his official bond, from liability to the state for the loss of any funds deposited in accordance with the provisions of said bill; and whereas, the question is one of vital importance at this time; therefore be it resolved that a copy of said bill, together with the following…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Ouriam.
The first branch of the question propounded must be answered in the negative. No statute adopted to regulate the safe-keeping of the public moneys can operate to relieve the state treasurer or his sureties from liability upon his official bond. The responsibility of that officer and his sureties for the protection and safety of the public funds while in his hands is irrevocably fixed by the constitutional mandate. Sec. 12, art. 10, Const.
The second branch of the question is not so easily answered. It is hardly possible that the framers of the constitution intended to make the…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Coffman v. Colorado Common CauseSupreme Court of Colorado · 2004
- State v. WalsenSupreme Court of Colorado · 1892
- Allen v. RamptonUtah Supreme Court · 1969
- Bardsley v. SternbergWashington Supreme Court · 1898
- Moulton v. McLeanColorado Court of Appeals · 1895
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.