Goldband v. Allen
| Decision Date | 25 May 1923 |
| Citation | 245 Mass. 143,139 N.E. 834 |
| Parties | GOLDBAND v. ALLEN, Commissioner of Banks, et al. ANDREWS v. SAME. GOLDFINE v. SAME. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Case Reserved from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.
Three separate suits by Harry Goldband, Jacob Andrews, and by Rose S. Goldfine against Joseph C. Allen, as Commissioner of Banks, and the Cosmopolitan Trust Company, in which the several plaintiffs seek to have established rights as depositors in the savings instead of the commercial department of the Trust Company. Causes heard together, and reserved on the pleadings and the Master's report, for the determination of the full court. Decree entered in the first suit for plaintiff for a part only of the amount claimed by him, and bills dismissed in the other suits.Alexander G. Gould and Thomas M. Vinson, both of Boston, for plaintiff Goldband.
Isaac Harris, of Boston, for plaintiff Goldfine.
E. Greenhood and A. A. Ginzberg, both of Boston, for plaintiff Andrews.
Daniel L. Smith, of Boston, for defendants.
These are three suits wherein the several plaintiffs seek to have established rights as depositors in the savings instead of the commercial department of the Cosmopolitan Trust Company. Each case has been referredto a master under a rule requiring him to find the facts, and is reserved for our determination on the pleadings and the master's report.
Since no evidence is reported, the findings of fact made by the master must be accepted as final, because on the face of the report they are not mutually inconsistent and contradictory or plainly wrong. Glover v. Waltham Laundry Co., 235 Mass. 330, 334, 127 N. E. 420;Daniels v. Daniels, 240 Mass. 380, 385, 134 N. E. 235;Jacobs v. Anderson, 243 Mass. --, 138 N. E. 314.
The facts in the Goldband case are that, after repeated requests by a vice president of the trust company, for that purpose duly authorized, Goldband presented for deposit $5,000 in trust for his brother. The vice president said that interest would be paid at the rate of 4 1/2 per cent. and offered a certificate of deposit to the plaintiff, who refused it and demanded a book. Thereupon a passbook was handed to him, like those ordinarily used in the commercial department of the trust company, acknowledging the deposit, and across its first page was stamped, ‘On thirty-one days' notice,’ which was explained to mean that, ‘as no checks would be drawn on the account, the bank might desire 31 days' notice before it repaid the money.’ A second deposit later was made by Goldband, as trustee for another person, with substantially the same circumstances. A third deposit was made on February 3, 1919, in the name of Goldband alone, under similar conditions, except that no words equivalent to ‘on thirty-one days' notice’ were on this passbook. This plaintiff received the usual monthly statements issued by the commercial department of the trust company, with interest added monthly commonly at the savings department rate.
The facts in the Andrews case are that he was solicited to deposit money in the trust company; that he sought and received from the trust company a mortgage loan on property of a charitable society of which he was president, upon his promise to deposit a large sum in his own name in the savings department of the trust company and to cause the account of the society to be kept in the commercial department of the trust company. The latter promise was kept. In respect to the former promise, the plaintiff handed his check and cash to the amount of $10,000 to the president of the trust company and received a certificate of deposit of the trust company for that amount payable to his order ‘upon surrender of this certificate, thirty days' notice.’ The president of the trust company stated at this time that this was the form used by its savings department on deposits requiring 30 days' notice, and would bear interest at the rate of 5 per cent., the rate then being paid in the savings department. Another certificate of deposit for $1,500 in return for a deposit of that amount was issued to the plaintiff under date of June 7, 1920, on the face of which was ‘Demand 5%.’
In the Goldfine case the facts are that the husband of that plaintiff, having been often solicited by the trust company for deposits, finally at his own office gave $20,000 for deposit in the savings department to the vice president of the trust company (who promised that the rate of interest to be paid would be 5 1/2 per cent.), and later received by mail a certificate of deposit for that sum payable to the order of the plaintiff on surrender of the certificate. Interest in fact was paid at the rate of 5 per cent., except for the last month, when the rate was 5 1/2 per cent. During most of the period of this deposit the rate paid in the savings department was 5 per cent., and never more than that.
Facts common to all the cases are that the Cosmopolitan Trust Company was organized under the laws of this commonwealth, and at the time of the events here in question conducted both a commercial department for the transaction of general banking business and a savings department for savings deposits, a separate set of books being kept for each department; that all the accounts of the several plaintiffs were as matter of bookkeeping carried in its commercial department; that certificates of deposit were issued by the commercial department alone and were carried on the ledgers of that department and treated by the trust company as commercial deposits; that for deposits in its savings department the trust company issued deposit books; that the plaintiffs Goldband and Andrews and the agent who acted for the third plaintiff, all are men of business experience and somewhat familiar with banking, certificates of deposit, checking accounts, and savings deposits. The master has found that each of the plaintiffs was justified in believing the representations made by the agent of the trust company; that the representations were such as to warrant a belief that the deposits were made in the savings department of the trust company, and the further belief that the book or certificate of deposit, as the case might be, was properly issued as representing a deposit in the savings department; and that there was no negligence in not making further inquiries to ascertain the department in which the deposit in truth was made.
[2][3] The deposit made by Goldband on February 3, 1919, in his own name, with its additions and accretions, must be treated as a deposit in the savings department. No definite rate of interest was stipulated. No specific notice as a prerequisite to withdrawal was required. Goldband supposed it was a savings department deposit and rightly was led to this belief by the representations of the agent of the defendant. He received a passbook in which his deposit was entered, which apparently indicated that his deposit could be withdrawn only on the presentation of the passbook, and which permitted successive deposits or withdrawals to be entered thereon. This comes within the first class described in G. L. c. 172, § 60, as deposits received and held in the savings department. The depositor was not responsible for the failure of the trust company or its agents to enter this deposit on the books of the savings department or treat it as a part of the assets of that department. There is no finding that he had knowledge of this fact or of the business methods or bookkeeping practices of the defendant. Sandborn v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 16 Gray, 448, 455, 77 Am. Dec. 419.
[4] That this deposit is in excess of the amount allowed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graustein v. H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc.
... ... v. Fisher, 203 Mass. 122, 132, 133, 89 N.E. 189,133 Am.St.Rep. 283;Marston v. Boston Publishing Co., 271 Mass. 307, 313, 171 N.E. 466;Goldband v. Commissioner of Banks, 245 Mass. 143, 150, 139 N.E. 834;Kennedy Bros., Inc., v. Bird, 287 Mass. 477, 482, 483, 192 N.E. 73. The case at bar is ... ...
-
Martin v. Jablonski
... ... Mistake as ground for relief in equity means a mistake common to all the parties to a written instrument. Sawyer v. Hovey, 3 Allen (Mass.) 331, 81 Am. Dec. 659;Dzuris v. Pierce, 216 Mass. 132, 135, 103 N. E. 296;Burke v. McLaughlin, 246 Mass. 533, 541, 141 N. E. 601;Porter v ... Goldband v. Commissioner of Banks, 245 Mass. 143, 150, 139 N. E. 834, and cases there collected; Beacon Tool & Machinery Co. v. National Products Manuf. Co., ... ...
-
Worcester Bank & Trust Co. v. Nordblom
... ... 343, 136 N. E. 112; Commissioner of Banks (In re Prudential Trust Co.), 244 Mass. 64, 138 N. E. 702;Goldband v. Commissioner of Banks, 245 Mass. 143, 151, 139 N. E. 834;Cosmopolitan Trust Co. v. Leonard Watch Co., 249 Mass. 14, 143 N. E. 827;Rossi Bros., ... ...
-
Henry v. Black & Decker Inc.
... ... Atwood v. City of Boston, 310 Mass. 70, 37 N.E.2d 131 (1941); Goldband v. Commissioner of Banks, 245 Mass. 143, 139 N.E. 834 (1923). The agreement between plaintiff and defendant USM is clear: ... 7. This Agreement ... ...