262 U.S. 366 (1923), 276, First National Bank of San Jose v. California

Docket Nº:No. 276
Citation:262 U.S. 366, 43 S.Ct. 602, 67 L.Ed. 1030
Party Name:First National Bank of San Jose v. California
Case Date:June 04, 1923
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 366

262 U.S. 366 (1923)

43 S.Ct. 602, 67 L.Ed. 1030

First National Bank of San Jose

v.

California

No. 276

United States Supreme Court

June 4, 1923

Submitted April 13, 1923

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Syllabus

A state law providing for the escheat to the bank deposits after they have remained intact and unclaimed for more than twenty years, when no notice of his residence has been filed with the bank by the depositor or any claimant, is void as applied to deposits in National Banks. Calif.Code Civ.Proc. § 1273; U.S.Rev.Stats. § 5136. P. 369.

186 Cal. 746 reversed.

Error to a judgment of the Supreme Court of California affirming a judgment for the state against the plaintiff in error bank in an action to declare unclaimed deposits escheated to the state.

MCREYNOLDS, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Section 1273, California Code of Civil Procedure, declares:

All amounts of money heretofore or hereafter deposited with any bank to the credit of depositors who have not made a deposit on said account or withdrawn any part thereof or the interest and which shall have remained unclaimed for more than 20 years after the date of such deposit, or withdrawal of any part of principal or interest, and where neither the depositor or any claimant has filed any notice with such bank showing his or her present residence, shall, with the increase and proceeds thereof, escheat to the state.

It further directs

Page 367

the Attorney General to institute actions in the Superior Court for Sacramento County against banks and depositors to recover all such amounts,

and if it be determined that the moneys deposited in any defendant bank or banks are unclaimed as hereinabove stated, then the court must render judgment in favor of the state declaring that said moneys have escheated to the state and commanding said bank or banks to forthwith deposit all such moneys with the state treasurer, to be received, invested, accounted for, and paid out in the same manner and by the same officers as is provided in the case of other escheated property.

Section 15 of the Bank Act (St.1909, p. 90) contains similar provisions.

In a proceeding under § 1273, the trial court gave judgment for the state against plaintiff in error for the amount credited upon its books to P. A. Campbell for more than 20 years, and this was affirmed by the Supreme Court. State v. Anglo & London Paris Nat. Bank of San Francisco, 186 Cal. 746. We are asked to hold that, so construed and applied, this section conflicts with the laws of the United States touching national banks, and is therefore invalid.

The trial court found --

That for more than 20 years prior to the institution of this action, there was on deposit with the said defendant bank to the credit of P. A. Campbell the sum of $1,192.25; that for more than 20 years prior to the institution of this action, the said P. A. Campbell has not made any deposit to the credit of said account, or withdrawn any part thereof or any interest or dividends accruing thereon; that the said money and account so deposited and all accruing interest and dividends thereon have remained unclaimed for more than 20 years after the same were so deposited or credited, and after the withdrawal of any part of the principal or interest or dividends, and said moneys and account now are unclaimed; that the date of the last transaction in connection

Page 368

with the said deposit of the said P. A. Campbell, whether by deposit or withdrawal of any portion of such account, or by withdrawal of any interest or dividends accruing...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP