Davis v. Lenawee County Savings Bank

• Decision Date: 06 March 1884
• Citation: 18 N.W. 629,53 Mich. 163
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: DAVIS v. LENAWEE CO. SAV. BANK.

18 N.W. 629

53 Mich. 163

DAVIS v. LENAWEE CO. SAV. BANK.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 6, 1884

There is no principle of law which makes the depositing of money in another person's name an irrevocable gift to that person and where a man, by agreement with the bank, deposited his funds in his wife's name, subject to his order, and upon the wife's death the bank refuses to pay to him, he may in a suit for the same show title in himself, and all the circumstances connected with the history of the deposit, and the wife's statement in derogation of her interest, are admissible in evidence.

In every action at law upon a contract, the contest must be between the two alleged contracting parties; and if the contract and breach are made out, the prevailing party must have judgment. There is no need for the estate of the wife to be represented in this suit.

Error to Lenawee.

Bean & Underwood, for plaintiff.

Millard, Weaver & Weaver, for defendant and appellant.

CAMPBELL, J.

Davis sued the defendant bank for a balance on deposit, and the suit was defended on the ground that the money belonged to his deceased wife. He recovered judgment, and defendant brings error.

The facts on which the controversy turned were substantially these: In 1872 plaintiff desired to open an account on his own behalf, and on applying to the bank was told he had already one account in his name, and therefore, by their usages, could not open another. The account already opened was for money belonging to his mother, deposited in his name for convenience. It was suggested to him that he might deposit his own money in an account kept in the name of his wife, subject to his own draft, and the account was so opened, and added to from time to time until it left a balance of about $1,900 standing, when his wife died in 1882. After her death the bank refused to recognize his right to the money, and he brought this suit to recover it.

A number of minor questions were raised concerning the introduction of testimony and upon some other rulings, but in our opinion, they become unimportant. If it was proper for plaintiff to show title in himself to the money in question, we can see no reason why he could not show all the circustances connected with the origin and history of the deposit, and his wife's statements in derogation of her interest. And in like manner, if this theory was made out, we can see no reason for considering the rulings on any but the main question, upon which they all really turn. The argument was full, and covered a great deal of ground, but in our view, the merits of the suit lie within a very narrow compass. The contract of a depositor with his bankers does not differ in any material way from any other contract whereby one person becomes bound to take charge of and repay another's funds. As between banker and depositor, there can be no doubt that the bank will be protected in paying out money in such way and on such terms as the depositor has authorized. And, on the other...