Hart v. Savary

• Decision Date: 21 February 1934
• Citation: 114 Fla. 41,152 So. 705
• Parties: HART et al. v. SAVARY et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

152 So. 705

114 Fla. 41

HART et al. v. SAVARY et al.

Florida Supreme Court

February 21, 1934

Rehearing Denied March 5, 1934.

En Banc.

Suit by Henry Hart and another against D. L. Savary, as liquidator of the Citizens' Bank of Inverness, and another. From an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss the bill of complaint, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Citrus County; Fred L. Stringer, judge.

COUNSEL

J. T Chancey, Alton T. Peacock, and Thomas B. Quinby, all of Tampa, for appellants.

Scofield & Scofield, of Inverness, for appellees.

OPINION

BUFORD Justice.

An administrator deposited a sum of money belonging to the estate for which he acted in a state bank. While the money was so deposited, the bank failed and was taken in charge by the comptroller and its affairs placed in the hands of a liquidator. The appellants, claiming to be entitled to receive the fund, brought this suit to compel an accounting from the administrator and the liquidator.

Appellants contend that the administrator is liable to them for the full amount of the fund received by him and that he must make good to them the loss occasioned by the failure of the bank. They next contend that the bank could only receive the funds as a special deposit and that they are entitled to have the amount of that deposit paid in full as a preferred claim by the bank.

At the time this transaction occurred, there was no law of the state of Florida prohibiting an administrator from depositing funds coming into the hands as administrator in an apparently solvent state bank doing a banking business under the laws of the state of Florida.

It may be stated as a general rule that executors and administrators must exercise that degree of care and prudence with reference to funds coming into their hands as such executors and administrators which ordinarily prudent and careful business men would exercise in regard to their own funds and, in the absence of any statute prohibiting such course, they may deposit such funds in the banks which appear to be solvent and in good standing; and when the deposit is so made, the executor or administrator will not be held liable for any loss which may occur through failure of the bank. See Barney v. Saunders, 16 How. 535, 14 L.Ed 1047; In re Law's Estate, 144, pa. 499, 22 A 831, 14 L. R. A. 103; Norwood v. Harness, 98 Ind 134, 49 Am. Rep. 739; 11 R. C. L. 140; 24 C.J. 50; People v. Faulkner, 107 N.Y. 477, 14 N.E. 415; Gray v. Elliott, 36 Wyo. 361, 255 P. 593, 53 A. L. R. 554; Id., 37 Wyo. 4, 257 P. 345, 53 A. L. R. 554.

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that an ordinary bank deposit is presumed to be a general deposit, and depositor has the burden of proof to show to the contrary. Bryan v Coconut Grove Bank & Trust Co., 101 Fla. 947, 132 So. 481, 134 So. 229. It is also well settled that the general test to be applied to be determined whether or not a claimant is...