Heath v. New Bedford Safe Deposit & Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 06 January 1904
• Citation: 184 Mass. 481,69 N.E. 215
• Parties: HEATH v. NEW BEDFORD SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

184 Mass. 481

69 N.E. 215

HEATH v. NEW BEDFORD SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 6, 1904

COUNSEL

Joseph Cavanagh, for plaintiff.

Mayhew R. Hitch and Fred L. Norton, for defendant.

OPINION

BRALEY J.

The contention of the defendant that the money was received from Macomber on the condition that he was to obtain the plaintiff's signature on the card furnished him, and return it to the company, and because he failed to company with this request the money was not accepted, and it was returned to him, becomes untenable, because at the time the money was handed to the cashier of the defendant he was informed that the deposit was to be made for the benefit of the plaintiff, and he was requested to send a telegram to him that it had been made and placed to his credit. A telegram was sent accordingly, informing the plaintiff that $190 had been placed to his credit by Macomber. The defendant was not obliged to take the money or send the telegram, but, if it choose to do both, it must stand by the contract thereby made. Under the completed transaction, the relation between the parties was that of banker and depositor, and the defendant became the debtor to the plaintiff for the amount of the general deposit placed to his credit. And its liability could be discharged only by payment of the debt. Ordinarily this could have been done in either of two ways: The plaintiff might have gone in person and demanded and received over the counter the money, or he could have drawn his check on the defendant for a part or the whole of the sum; and if the company paid to him, or to a person lawfully presenting a check signed by him, its indebtedness would be discharged. Carr v. National Security Bank, 107 Mass. 45, 9 Am. Rep. 6. But while Macomber, in making the deposit, obeyed the instructions given him by the plaintiff, the fact that he was his agent for that purpose would not of itself be sufficient to clothe him with authority to check it out. And the rule is clear that the acts of an agent not within the scope of his authority do not bind his principal.

The defendant apparently became dissatisfied by reason of the delay in not receiving the card containing the signature of the plaintiff, as well as by the fact that the deposit was to be immediately withdrawn. But its dissatisfaction could not operate to change the nature of the contract or discharge it from...