Eyerman v. Second Nat'l Bank

• Decision Date: 27 February 1883
• Citation: 13 Mo.App. 289
• Parties: G. EYERMAN, Appellant, v. SECOND NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

13 Mo.App. 289

G. EYERMAN, Appellant,

v.SECOND NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Feb. 27, 1883.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, THAYER, J.

Reversed and remanded.

A. R. TAYLOR, for the appellant.

NOBLE & ORRICK, for the respondent.

LEWIS, P. J., delivered the opinion of the court.

Herman Rechtien was county treasurer of St. Louis County before and at the time when the scheme of separation went into effect, and the plaintiff was one of the sureties on his official bond. He had, at the same time, on deposit in the National Bank of the State of Missouri, the sum of $17,705.28 belonging to the school fund of the old county. Afterwards, the proper authorities of the new county, and of the city of St. Louis, made a joint demand upon Rechtien for these moneys, but were refused payment. The same authorities thereupon instituted a suit upon his official bond, on the same account, and obtained a judgment for $14,337.90 against the treasurer and his sureties. The sureties satisfied the judgment and were, by a proper instrument, subrogated to whatever right or claim was held by the city and county, or either of them, to the money on deposit, as stated, and especially to the specified part thereof which is the subject of the present suit. The plaintiff, by assignment from his co-sureties, became sole holder of the claim here sued upon. Pending the transactions above recited, in June, 1877, the State National Bank failed, and its affairs went into the hands of a receiver, under the act of Congress. On June 27, 1877, the receiver issued and delivered a certificate showing that ““Herman Rechtien, county school treasurer,” was a creditor of the bank, to the amount of $17,705.28, on account of “balance as per pass-book.” On August 30, 1877, the receiver delivered to Rechtien a draft for $2,655.79 drawn by the United States comptroller of the currency on the United States assistant treasurer at New York, payable to the order of “Herman Rechtien, county school treasurer,” being for the first dividend from the bank assets, upon the deposit indebtedness before mentioned. This draft was indorsed and transferred, for its face value, by Rechtien to the defendant corporation, which afterwards collected and appropriated the amount to its own use. The plaintiff sues for the same, as assignee of the rights of the city and county. The circuit court instructed the jury that, upon the facts shown, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.

The fact that a man is county treasurer furnishes no presumption that money deposited by him in a bank is the property of the county. The bank, in receiving the deposit, becomes debtor to him as an individual. This relation between the parties is not changed by the addition of “county treasurer” to his name in the bank account books, or in the checks drawn by him. It has been frequently held that such additions impart no notice that the fund is held in a fiduciary capacity, and that they have no legal significance beyond a description of the person. Thus, “Herman Rechtien, county treasurer,” may be a form intended only to show that the person is not some other having the same name, who is not county treasurer. Every legal presumption, as between the parties, is in favor of the personal ownership of the fund by the depositor; and, if nothing more appears, the bank must be guided, in all its transactions, by these presumptions. The principle is the same that was recognized in Powell v. Morrison (35 Mo. 244), though with a different application. There, a promissory note given in the purchase of lands sold in partition was made payable to “the order of James Castello, sheriff of St. Louis County.” The payee sold the note before maturity, and one of the partitioners sued the transferee for his share of the partition proceeds contained in the note. It was held that the words “sheriff of St. Louis County” imparted no notice to the indorsee, of the trust attached, but were merely descriptive of the payee, and the plaintiff could not recover. A like conclusion was reached in Thornton v. Rankin (19 Mo. 193), where, upon a sale of real estate belonging to certain minors, a note was made payable to their guardian, by the description ““Isaac J. Cooper, guardian, etc.,” and by him transferred to an indorsee without other notice of the facts. So, in Fletcher v. Schaumburg (41 Mo. 501), it was held that a distributee in partition could not set up her distributive...