Coleman v. First Nat. Bank

• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Gaines
• Citation: Coleman v. First Nat. Bank, 63 S.W. 867 (Tex. 1901)
• Decision Date: 27 June 1901
• Parties: COLEMAN v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF WAXAHACHIE.

63 S.W. 867

COLEMAN v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF WAXAHACHIE.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 27, 1901.

Error from court of civil appeals of Fifth supreme judicial district; Ellis, Judge.

Action by Mrs. R. J. Coleman against the First National Bank of Waxahachie. From a judgment of the court of civil appeals affirming a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

See 43 S. W. 938; 64 S. W. 93.

Seay & Seay, for plaintiff in error. M. B. Templeton, Mr. Harding, and Finley, Etheridge & Knight, for defendant in error.

GAINES, C. J.

This suit was brought by the plaintiff in error, a widow, to recover of defendant in error certain moneys deposited in its bank by her husband during his lifetime, which belonged to her in her own separate right. The defense was that the money was deposited with it by the husband in the name of his wife, with instructions that he was to draw it out upon checks signed in her name by him, and that he had so drawn it out. To the answer of the defendant the plaintiff replied, in substance, that her husband was a man of utterly dissolute habits in regard to money, and unsafe to be trusted therewith, and that the bank knew the facts; and that, if it allowed the money to be checked out, it was guilty of gross negligence. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant, which judgment was affirmed upon appeal.

The following conclusions of fact were found by the court of civil appeals: "In July, 1889, J. W. Coleman, the husband of the appellant, deposited with defendant bank the sum of $4,076.35, and thereafter other amounts, aggregating in all $5,165.17. Said money was the separate property of, and deposited in the name of Mrs. R. J. Coleman. At the time it was deposited, J. W. Coleman stated to the cashier that he would deposit the money in the bank in his wife's name, but it was to be understood that it would be checked out by him. It was known to the cashier of the bank that the money so deposited was the separate estate of Mrs. R. J. Coleman. Between the time of the making of said deposits and up to the time of the death of J. W. Coleman, in September, 1893, he drew checks against said deposits on said bank, said checks being signed `R. J. Coleman, by J. W. Coleman,' in various sums of money, which checks were presented to the bank, and paid in the usual course of business, amounting in the aggregate to the entire amount of said deposits. J. W. Coleman was a drinking man, and at times gambled. When drinking, he was reckless in the use of money. The officers of the bank knew that he was a drinking man, but did not know that he gambled, or that he was reckless in the use of money."

The question is, when a husband has deposited his wife's money in bank in her own name, with the understanding that he will draw it out by checks, is the bank authorized to pay upon checks so drawn; and we think the question should be answered in the affirmative. We have found but little authority upon the immediate question, and are of opinion that, since it is a matter in this state of statutory regulation, decisions from other states would be of but little value. As to the title of property acquired during marriage by the efforts of the husband or wife, or by the joint efforts of both, our laws are probably more liberal towards the wife than those of any other state, except the few in which the community system exists. But as to the husband's control over her separate estate they are less liberal than the laws of several of the other states. In some she may carry on business under her own name, and on her own account, and in some the husband has no control over her separate estate, except such as may be conferred by her upon him. In this state the statute, speaking with reference to the wife's separate property, declares that "during the marriage the husband shall have the sole management of all such property." Rev. St. art. 2967. The provision is more important in this state, since under our laws the income of the separate property of either spouse becomes the common property of the husband and wife. "The sole management" of the wife's separate estate does not imply that the husband has the power to sell her tangible property, or even her choses in action, and it has been held that this he cannot do. Kempner v. Comer, 73 Tex. 200, 11 S. W. 194. But it does imply that he may put it to its appropriate use, so that it may produce an income. As to her money, the power of management gives him the right to its possession, to keep it safely, and hence to deposit in bank, and to draw it out. Such being the authority of the husband under the law,—...