Tillman v. Guar. Trust Co. of New York
| Decision Date | 18 March 1930 |
| Citation | 253 N.Y. 295,171 N.E. 61 |
| Parties | TILLMAN v. GUARANTY TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by James A. Tillman against the Guaranty Trust Company of New York. Judgment of the Special Term which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, as barred by the statute of limitations, was affirmed (226 App. Div. 862, 235 N. Y. S. 245), and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.
Borris M. Komar, of New York City, for appellant.
Ralph M. Carson and William C. Cannon, both of New York City, for respondent.
The complaint sets forth a cause of action for a deposit of money not to be repaid at a fixed time, but only upon special demand. In October, 1920, the Deutsche Bank at the request of the depositor sent to the defendant a letter of inquiry concerning the status of the deposit account. The letter contained no present demand for the payment or transfer of the money on deposit. Demand was to await the reply to the inquiry. The defendant in reply stated unequivocally that the plaintiff's assignors had no valid claim to any deposit, and that the defendant held no ‘balance’ at their disposal. Thereafter no demand was necessary to entitle the plaintiff's assignors to maintain an action for the money on deposit. Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N. Y. 506, 22 N. E. 188, 5 L. R. A. 340, 12 Am. St. Rep. 819; Sokoloff v. National City Bank, 250 N. Y. 69, 164 N. E. 745. The period of limitation during which an action may be brought must be computed from the time of the accruing of the right to relief by action, except as otherwise specifically prescribed by statute. Civil Practice Act, § 15. Special rules prescribed in section 15 of the Practice Act govern the computation of periods of limitation where a right exists, but a demand is necessary to entitle a person to maintain an action. So long as demand is necessary to entitle a depositor to bring an action, the provisionsof section 15 apply. They have no application after right to relief by action is complete without demand. By failure to make a demand which is unnecessary, a depositor cannot prevent the period of limitation from running against a cause of action which he is entitled to maintain without demand. $The court at Special Term did not err either in denying the motion to vacate the ex parte order extending defendant's time, or in granting the motion to dismiss the complaint.
The judgment should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guaranty Trust Co of New York v. United States 28 8212 29, 1938
...statute of limitations does not run against a suit to recover a bank account until liability upon it is repudiated, Tillman v. Guaranty Trust Co., 253 N.Y. 295, 171 N.E. 61, and that the statute of limitations does not run against a plaintiff who has no forum in which to assert his rights, ......
-
Steingut v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York
...action, Civil Practice Act § 15, unless there is a repudiation of liability and notice thereof to the creditor. Tillman v. Guaranty Trust Co., 1930, 253 N.Y. 295, 171 N.E. 61. It is not suggested that notice of such repudiation was ever given to the Soviet Government, whom we must, with our......
-
Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 04-56105.
...the bank's closure constitutes repudiation of the contract and the cause of action accrues at that time. Tillman v. Guar. Trust Co., 253 N.Y. 295, 171 N.E. 61, 61-62 (1930) (per curiam) ("The period of limitation during which an action may be brought must be computed from the time of the ac......
-
Miller v. National City Bank of New York
...53, C.P. A.) applies, the causes of action are barred. Section 15 of the Civil Practice Act has no application. Tillman v. Guaranty Trust Co., 253 N.Y. 295, 171 N.E. 61; Glover v. National Bank of Commerce, 156 App. Div. 247, 141 N.Y.S. 409. The motion to dismiss the complaint is granted. S......