Dickinson v. Leominster Sav. Bank

• Decision Date: 21 June 1890
• Citation: 25 N.E. 12,152 Mass. 49
• Parties: DICKINSON v. LEOMINSTER SAV. BANK.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

152 Mass. 49

25 N.E. 12

DICKINSON v. LEOMINSTER SAV. BANK.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

June 21, 1890

COUNSEL

G.A.A. Pevy, for plaintiff.

Hamilton Mayo, for defendant.

OPINION

FIELD J.

The evidence that the deposits stood on the books of the bank in the name of the plaintiff, and that a deposit book numbered 221 had been issued in her name, was evidence against the bank that it had been indebted to the plaintiff to the amount of the deposits and the dividends declared thereon. The plaintiff testified that she made deposits numbered 1, 3, 6, and 10, and that her uncle, in her presence, made deposit numbered 2, and that all these were deposits of her money. These amount to $16.70. She also testified that deposits numbered 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 were of her money, given her by her father. These amount to $444.24. As to deposit numbered 4 she testified that her father came home and said: "Katie, I have given you $100.00. It is deposited to your account in the bank." She further testified that at other times he had told her that he had deposited money in her name, on her account; and also that she had the bank-book in the first place, but that her father afterwards kept possession of the bank-book. The remaining credits are of dividends to the amount of $28.38 and of a deposit, numbered 11, on December 1, 1870, of $20.68. There was evidence that this sum of $20.68 was deposited by the father to make good a deficit in the account, he having withdrawn, from time to time, sums of money which had been carried by the bank to the debit of the account. These sums, when the last payment to him was made viz., on July 18, 1870, amounted in all to $510, and this deposit of $20.68 was necessary to balance the account. It is manifest that there was evidence for the jury that the father intended to give to the plaintiff the money he deposited in her name. There was also evidence that the plaintiff never authorized the payments made to the father from this account and that she first knew that these payments had been made to him in the fall of 1884. The plaintiff was born on December 27, 1857. Her father, George A. Allen, died on August 27, 1874, and her mother, Louise B. Allen, died July 7, 1888. The mother was appointed guardian of the plaintiff on March 16, 1875, and, it seems, remained her guardian until the plaintiff reached her majority, which was on December 26, 1878. The writ is dated June 10, 1889.

It has been contended that the defendant has a defense under what is now the last clause of Pub.St. c. 116, § 29, which is as follows: "Money deposited in the name of a minor may, at the discretion of the trustees or committee of investment, be paid to such minor, or to the person making such deposit; and the same shall be a valid payment." This was taken directly from St.1876, c. 203, § 18, but the same provision was contained in Gen.St. c. 57, § 154, and was originally enacted by St.1855, c. 361; and it has been continuously in force since its original enactment, and was therefore in force when the deposits and the payments in this case were made, and must be taken to be a part of the contract which the bank made when it received the deposits. There was evidence that nearly all the payments were made to the father of the plaintiff, either by Joel C. Allen or by Alfred L. Burditt, both of whom were at the time members of the board of investment. This statutory provision was plainly enacted for the benefit of the banks. It enabled them to pay money deposited in the name of a minor without requiring that a guardian be appointed to receive it, or that a suit be brought in the name of the minor by a guardian or next friend. If the minor deposited the money, the statute authorizes the payment only to the minor; if some other person deposited the money in the minor's name, the statute authorizes the payment of the money either to the minor or to the person making the deposit. Independently of this statute, the bank had no right to make the payments to the father, if the deposits were absolutely the property of the plaintiff, even if the father had made the deposits. See Miles v. Boyden, 3 Pick. 213. It is contended that, in order to bring this case within the statute, it is necessary that the trustees or committee of investment as a board should have authorized the payments. The statute does not give to the minor any right to intervene and be heard when the trustees or committee of investment proceed to determine whether they will act under the statute. The intention is to give to the governing board of the bank this power as a means of administering the affairs of the bank. If the treasurer should act under the statute, without authority, there is no reason why the trustees or committee of investment should not have the right to ratify what he had done, with the same effect as if they had originally authorized it. This concerns only the regulation of the affairs of the bank, and not the rights of the minor. If the trustees of the bank treat payments made to the father by the treasurer as valid payments, this is evidence of ratification; and if the bank in this suit sets up that the payments are valid, we think that it is not open to the plaintiff to object that they were not originally authorized by the trustees or committee of investment. But payments could be made to the father only to the amount of the moneys which he deposited in the name of the plaintiff. There was some evidence that small portions of the moneys deposited were deposited by the plaintiff herself, and, even if the evidence of payments to the father should be taken to be true, the court could not properly rule that the plaintiff, by reason of this provision of the statute, could not maintain her action for any part of her claim.

Whether the statute of limitations is a bar to this action depends upon the time when the statute began to run against the claim. The by-laws of the bank provide: "Any money may be withdrawn on the third Wednesday of January, April, July and October; and the treasurer may pay any depositor who applies in any other Wednesday for his interest or capital, or any part thereof, if the money received on that day shall be sufficient, and one week's notice shall be given; but in all cases where more than one hundred dollars is to be withdrawn, three months' notice shall be given to the treasurer." One of the rules and regulations of the bank is as follows: "The treasurer is authorized to make payments, on demand, on any business day. Nevertheless he may require three months' notice if, in his judgment, the condition of the bank requires such notice." A depositor in a savings bank becomes a creditor of the bank, although the promise of the bank is not a promise to pay in full at all events. In some aspects the depositors must be regarded as...