Andrew v. Citizens' State Bank of Eagle Grove
| Decision Date | 22 November 1927 |
| Docket Number | 38250 |
| Citation | 216 N.W. 12,205 Iowa 237 |
| Parties | L. A. ANDREW, State Superintendent of Banking, Receiver, Appellee, v. CITIZENS STATE BANK OF EAGLE GROVE et al., Appellees; A. E. RUSE, Administrator, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
REHEARING DENIED FEBRUARY 11, 1928.
Appeal from Wright District Court.--SHERWOOD A. CLOCK, Judge.
Modified and affirmed.
Clyde C. Coyle, for appellant.
J. W McGrath, for L. A. Andrew, appellee.
Nagle & Hill and Helsell, Helsell & McCall, for Hazel Pent, appellee.
Helsell Helsell & McCall, for Nelson Williams, appellee.
The opinion states the case.--Modified and affirmed.
I. On May 13, 1924, Frances L. Mount deposited $ 2,000 in the Citizens State Bank of Eagle Grove, Iowa, for which a certificate of deposit, known in the record and hereafter referred to as No. 41072, payable to her order, was issued to her. On the same day, another certificate, designated as No. 41071, in renewal of a previous one for $ 2,000, "payable to the order of self or Hazel Pent, daughter," was issued and delivered to her. On or about January 25, 1925, Frances L. Mount died intestate, at Hamilton, Ohio. On January 26th, Nelson Williams, a resident of Ohio, was appointed administrator of her estate. The two certificates of deposit above referred to were found among her effects, and taken into his possession by the Ohio administrator. On or about March 5, 1925, A. E. Ruse was appointed administrator of the estate of Lelia Mount Dean, in Humboldt County, Iowa. It is agreed that Frances L. Mount and Lelia Mount Dean was one and the same person. The decedent for many years resided in Humboldt County with her husband, who continues a resident thereof. Decedent and her husband lived apart. On and just prior to March 20, 1925, demand was made on the Citizens State Bank by the Ohio administrator for the payment of Certificate No. 41072. Payment was refused by the bank, upon the ground that an administrator of the estate of Mrs. Dean had been appointed in Humboldt County, who had notified it to hold the deposit. The Iowa administrator also demanded payment of both certificates. Hazel Pent, the decedent's daughter, who, we gather, is a resident of Ohio, demanded payment of Certificate No. 41071. Payment of this certificate was also declined by the bank.
On June 30, 1925, A. E. Ruse, the Iowa administrator, commenced an action in equity against the Citizens State Bank, to recover the entire deposit of $ 4,000. The two certificates of deposit remained in the custody of the Ohio administrator. The bank filed answer to the petition in equity, admitting the genuineness of the certificates and its willingness to pay the same to the proper party, and asked that the court make such order in the premises as would protect it from further liability. A few days later, Hazel Pent appeared in the equity case, and filed a petition in intervention, alleging ownership of the certificate claimed by her, and asking that the amount represented thereby be paid to her. Just prior to the filing of the petition in intervention, the bank filed an application in the equity case, asking that it be permitted to pay the money to the clerk of the district court, and that it be relieved from further controversy or liability in the matter. Thereupon, the court ordered the bank to retain the deposit in its possession until further disposition could be made thereof. As a part of the same order, the court directed that the Ohio administrator and the Second National Bank of Ohio, through which demand had been made by the Ohio administrator for payment of Certificate No. 41072, be made parties to the action, and directed the clerk to cause a notice to be served upon them. On November 23d following, Nelson Williams, the Ohio administrator, filed a special appearance, reciting many of the matters hereinbefore stated, and alleging that proceedings were pending in the Ohio court to determine the respective rights of the parties to the certificate claimed by Hazel Pent, and that her claim would have to be there litigated.
In January, 1926, the Iowa administrator filed an amendment to his petition, alleging that the Citizens State Bank had closed its doors, and that its affairs had been taken over by the state superintendent of banking, as receiver. Later, several amendments to the answer of the bank were filed by the receiver, in which the court is asked to determine the ownership of the certificates, and to establish and adjudicate the claims of the respective parties thereto. By agreement of counsel, the case, except the petition in intervention, was transferred to, and later assigned for hearing and tried in, the receivership proceeding.
On February 10, 1926, Hazel Pent filed a claim in the receivership, alleging-her ownership of Certificate No. 41071, and asking the establishment of a preferred claim against the receiver. Thereafter, the Ohio administrator filed a claim in the receivership proceeding for $ 4,000, asking that same be established and allowed as a preferred claim. No other pleadings of any kind were filed, either in the equity case or in the receivership proceedings.
On the first day of April, 1926, a trial was had, upon a stipulation of facts, the testimony of the Iowa administrator, and certain documentary evidence offered by the Ohio administrator. The court found that the Ohio administrator was entitled to have Certificate No. 41072 paid to him, and gave him the status of a depositor. The court also found that Hazel Pent was entitled to have the remaining certificate paid to her, with the same order as to payment. A preference was denied as to both claims. Both administrators appeal. As the appeal of the Iowa administrator was first perfected, he is denominated the appellant.
It is the contention of the Ohio administrator that the decedent was domiciled in Ohio, and that the primary administration is in that state; whereas the appellant contends that the residence of the decedent was that of her husband, and that the primary administration is in Humboldt County, Iowa. It is unnecessary at this time to decide this controversy. Both administrators contend that, after demand was made of the bank for the payment of the certificates, and the refusal thereof, an implied trust arose in favor of the beneficiary thereof, and that the order of the court, entered in response to the application of the bank for permission to pay the money into court, operated to create an express trust, and that, at the time the receiver was appointed, the bank held the fund as trustee of the person entitled to receive payment thereof. For reasons presently to be stated, it is unnecessary for the court to decide this point. Hazel Pent has not appealed, but asks only that the order entered below be affirmed.
To entitle either claimant to preferential payment of the claims in controversy, it must be made to appear that the trust fund, if any, passed into the possession of the receiver in augmentation of the assets of the bank. The only evidence on this point is the following concession of the attorneys for the receiver:
"It is conceded that there were sufficient assets to pay the certificate that was presented, being Certificate 41072."
Counsel for the respective claimants and for the receiver do not agree as to the application to be made of the foregoing concession. The certificate therein referred to was, as previously stated, at the request of the Ohio administrator presented to the bank for payment. Whether the concession of counsel refers to the assets of the bank at the time of the presentation of the certificate or to the assets that passed into the possession of the receiver, it is impossible to tell. The use of the word "presented" with particular reference to the one certificate is significant. The Ohio administrator has at all times claimed that he is entitled to have the entire fund...
To continue reading
Request your trial