Hiller v. Bank Of D.C.
| Decision Date | 18 September 1912 |
| Citation | 75 S.E. 789,92 S.C. 445 |
| Parties | HILLER. v. BANK OF COLUMBIA. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
1. Pleading (§ 362*)—Actions for Deposits—Issues.
Where, under the undisputed evidence, the sole issue was whether a deposit had been drawn out by the depositor or her duly authorized agent, except a trifling amount, the striking out of allegations in the answer of the bank, charging that the depositor, as administratrix, had mingled funds of the estate with her own in her bank account, and had drawn them out from time to time, was not erroneous.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 1147-1155; Dec. Dig. § 362.*]
2. Banks and Banking (§ 138*)—Deposits —Withdrawals.
Where a depositor in a bank made two accounts, under an agreement that a third person should, as her agent have the right to draw on one of them, the bank could not charge checks drawn by the third person on the other account.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Cent. Dig. 398-405; Dec. Dig. § 138.*]
3. Banks and Banking (§ 134*)—Deposits —Withdrawals.
Where a depositor in a bank having two accounts in his own right, kept separate merely for his own convenience, drew on one of them beyond the amount to his credit, without any arrangement with the bank that he should do so, the bank could charge the overdrafts on the other account; and, where the bank was sued for the balance due on the latter account, it could show that overdrafts on the former account were issued by the depositor's authority.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Cent. Dig. §§ 353-374; Dec. Dig. § 134.*]
4. Banks and Banking (§ 134*)—Deposits —Withdrawals—Set-Off.
Where a depositor has not assigned his deposit by check or otherwise, his right to demand the balance is subject to the right of the bank to set off against it any debt due by the depositor to the bank; and this right extends to a demand of the bank for money paid on the depositor's debts without his authority, provided the depositor subsequently ratifies the payment by adopting it for his own benefit.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Cent. Dig. §§ 353-374; Dec. Dig. § 134.*]
5. Banks and Banking (§ 134*)—Deposits —Set-Off—Burden of Proof.
A bank, seeking to set off against the balance due a depositor money paid on the depositor's debts without his authority, must plead and prove that the depositor ratifies such payment by adopting it for his own benefit.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Cent. Dig. §§ 353-374; Dec. Dig. § 134.*]
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; T. H. Spain, Judge. "To be officially reported."
Action by Nannie E. Hiller against the Bank of Columbia. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
D. W. Robinson, of Columbia, for appellant.
Tompkins & Lee, of Columbia, for respondent.
WOODS, J. [1] The complaint in this action alleges that the plaintiff deposited with the defendant bank $200 on April 19, 1909, which the defendant refused to pay on demand. The answer admitted the deposit, but alleged that the deposit was drawn out by the plaintiff before the commencement of the action. The answer also contained a number of allegations charging that the plaintiff, as administratrix of her husband's estate or executrix of his will, had mingled funds of that estate with her own in her bank account, and had drawn them out from time to time. Most of these latter allegations were ruled out by Judge Spain. There was no reversible error in granting this order; for it clearly appears from the undisputed evidence adduced on both sides that the sole issue in the case was whether all the funds, except 13 cents, had been drawn out by the plaintiff or her duly authorized agent; and that issue was made by the single allegation of the answer that they had been so drawn.
All the money deposited by the plaintiff belonged to her individually; but she chose, for convenience, to keep two accounts, one in her individual name and the other in the name of "Nannie E. Hiller, Adm'x, " although she was not administratrix. The latter account was used in the conduct of a mercantile business, owned by the plaintiff and conducted by her and her brother-in-law, John Hiller. On this account John Hiller was authorized to check, signing the checks "Nannie E. Hiller, Adm'x." Both John Hiller and the plaintiff issued checks against this account, which were paid and charged against it, until several checks were presented which would have overdrawn the account. Instead of refusing payment, the bank, by the direction of John Hiller, charged this overdraft to the account kept in the name of Nannie E. Hiller. No evidence was offered that John Hiller was authorized to use or control the latter account. In this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carolina Life Ins. Co. v. Bank of Greenwood
... ... The respondent had ... the right to maintain separate accounts in the appellant ... bank. In Hiller v. Bank of Columbia, 92 S.C. 445, 75 ... S.E. 789, 790, it is stated: 'When Mrs. Hiller made two ... accounts with the bank, under an agreement ... ...
-
State v. Mutual Sav. Bank at Bennettsville
... ... Bank v. Hall, 83 N.Y. 338, 38 Am. Rep. 434; ... Hallowell v. Bank, 154 Mass. 359, 28 N.E. 281, 13 L ... R. A. 315; 7 C.J. 654, 502; Hiller ... ...
-
State Ex Rel. Craig v. Mut. Sa
... 133 S.E. 901 STATE ex rel. CRAIG, State Bank Examiner, v. MUTUAL SAV. BANK AT BENNETTS-VILLE et al. LIBERTY NAT. BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT ... 434; Hallowell v. Bank, 154 Mass. 359, 28 N. E. 281, 13 L. R. A. 315; 7 C. J. 654, 502; Hiller v. Bank, 92 S. C. 445, 75 S. E. 789, 96 S. C. 74, 79 S. E. 899; Southern Trust Co. v. Wilkins, ... ...
-
Hiller v. Bank of Columbia
...Action by Nannie E. Hiller against the Bank of Columbia. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed. See, also, 92 S.C. 445, 75 S.E. 789. D. Robinson, of Columbia, for appellant. Frank G. Tompkins, of Columbia, for respondent. HYDRICK, J. A short time after her husband's dea......