
    COUNTIES — INTEREST.
    [Hamilton (1st) Circuit Court,
    January 29, 1910.]
    Giffen, Smith and Swing, JJ.
    
      State ex rel. Pros. Atty. v. Western German Bank.
    1. Prosecutor May Maintain Action for Recovery of Interest on ' County Funds Unlawfully Deposited.
    A prosecuting attorney may maintain an action for the benefit of the county under R. S. 1277 (Gen. Code 2921) for recovery from a bank of interest on public funds deposited therein, whether so deposited lawfully or otherwise.
    2. Six not Four Years’ Limitation Applies to Action for Recovery of Interest on County Funds.
    An action for recovery of interest on county' funds deposited without authority is brought for the benefit of a county; hence the state is not a real party in interest, and the six years’ statute of limitations prescribed by R. S. 4981 (Gen. Code 11221), and not the four years’ limitation provided by R. S. 4982 (Gen. Code 11224) is available.
    
      Hunt, Bettman & M err ell, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Kitt'redge, Wil'by & Stimson and H. D. Peck, for defendant in error.
    
      
      Affirming, State v. Kilgour, 19 Dec. 837, and State v. Bank, 22 Dec. 113; affirmed, no op., State v. Bank, 85 O. S. 000; 57 Bull. 79.
    
   GIFFEN, P. J.

The original action was commenced to recover from the bank money had and received, whether wrongfully or not, for the use of Hamilton county; and it is because the money is thus due to the county that the prosecuting attorney is authorized to bring the suit as he did. R. S. 1277 (Gen. Code 2921).

The limitation applicable to the cause of action stated was six years, as provided by R. S. 4981 (Gen. Code 11221), and not four years, as provided by R. S. 4982 (Gen. Code 11224). Mount v. Lakeman, 21 Ohio St. 643.

The action having been commenced under favor of R. S. 1277 (Gen. Code 2921), for the benefit of the county and to recover money due to the county, the state is not a real party in interest, and the plea of the statute of limitations is available. Hartman v. Hunter, 56 Ohio St. 175 [46 N. E. Rep. 577].

Judgment affirmed^

Smith and Swing, JJ., concur.  