Hanebrink v. Tower Grove Bank & Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 17 February 1959
• Docket Number: No. 30232,30232
• Parties: Ida HANEBRINK (Plaintiff), Respondent, v. TOWER GROVE BANK & TRUST COMPANY, a Corporation (Defendant), Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 524

321 S.W.2d 524

Ida HANEBRINK (Plaintiff), Respondent, v. TOWER GROVE BANK & TRUST COMPANY, a Corporation (Defendant) Appellant.

No. 30232.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Feb. 17, 1959.

Opinion Modified and Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer to

Supreme Court Denied March 18, 1959.

Robert J. Gaddy, St. Louis, for appellant.

Edward C. Schneider, Harry A. Frank, St. Louis, for respondent.

WOLFE, Judge.

This is an action wherein the plaintiff sought to recover $69.51, which she alleged that the defendant trust company had wrongfully paid out of a savings account. The account was in the name of the plaintiff and her husband. The money had been paid into court by the trust company in response to a garnishment served upon it. The judgment giving rise to the garnishment was against only the husband of the plaintiff. Upon trial the plaintiff successfully contended that the account was not subject to the debt of her husband, and from the resulting judgment the defendant prosecutes this appeal.

The facts are simple and undisputed. Ida Hanebrink and her husband, Mark Hanebrink, had on deposit with the Tower Grove Bank & Trust Company, defendant, $69.51. This was in a savings account and the account was carried under the name 'Hanebrink, Ida or Mark either or survivor'. There was a judgment against Mark E. Hanebrink and on that judgment a writ of garnishment in aid of execution was issued by the clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. This writ was served upon the Tower Grove Bank & Trust Company.

After the trust company had been served with the writ of garnishment, the following letter was addressed and sent to Mark E. Hanebrink:

'This is to advise that our office represents the Tower Grove Bank and Trust Company of this city. Our client has been served with a garnishment executed from the Circuit Clerk's office of the City of St. Louis. The garnishment is in the amount of $1,300.00 plus present costs of $50.55. Inasmuch as your account contains only $69.51 we have tied up the entire amount pending disposition of this garnishment.

'In the event this garnishment is not released before the first Monday of June, 1957, we will be required to answer interrogatories and in all probability pay the funds into court. If you secure any release before that time be sure to furnish a copy of same to Tower Grove Bank and Trust Company so that they may release your account.'

The plaintiff testified that she had knowledge of the letter and its contents.

Another letter, of later date, to the same effect was addressed and sent to the plaintiff's husband. The plaintiff also read this letter.

After the first letter had been written interrogatories were propounded to the trust company, garnishee, and one of the questions asked was as follows:

'2. At the time of the service of the writ of garnishment upon you, towit, on the 29th day of March, 1957, were you, or have you since said time become, or are you now in anywise indebted to the said defendant? If yes, state what amount and in what manner the debt accrued; if evidenced by any instrument in writing, describe the same, and state what has become of said instrument, and whether to your knowledge, it is in the possession or under the control of the defendant?'

which was answered:

'Yes. At the time of service of the writ of garnishment defendant maintained a saving account at garnishee Bank with a balance of $69.51. At the present time garnishee remains indebted to defendant for the said amount.'

Subsequent to the filing of its answer in the garnishment proceedings the trust company was ordered to pay the $69.51 to the clerk of the court. It complied with this order and was thereafter discharged as a garnishee.

After this plaintiff went to the trust company and tendered to it a withdrawal slip for the sum that the trust company had paid out under the writ of garnishment. The trust company refused to pay her and this action followed. The trial was to the court and resulted in a...