Holman v. Randolph Nat. Bank
| Decision Date | 07 October 1924 |
| Citation | 126 A. 500 |
| Parties | HOLMAN v. RANDOLPH NAT. BANK. RANDOLPH NAT. BANK v. HOLMAN. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Orange County Court; Harrie B. Chase, Judge. Two cases, one an action at law by Emma L. Holman by Justin M. Holman, as guardian, against the Randolph National Bank, and the other a bill in equity by such bank against the named plaintiff. From a decree in the equity case dismissing bill, and from a judgment in the law case sustaining a demurrer to and striking out paragraphs of answer, the bank excepted and appeals. Affirmed in each case.
Argued before WATSON, C. J., and POWERS, TAYLOR, SLACK, and BUTLER, JJ.
J. Ward Carver, of Barre, and Stanley C. Wilson, of Chelsea, for plaintiff.
March M. Wilson, of Randolph, and Warren R. Austin, of Burlington, for defendant.
The first above-entitled case is an action at law brought by Justin M. Holman as guardian of Emma L. Holman to recover for money deposited by the latter in her name in the Randolph National Bank on September 3, 1890, in an account evidenced by deposit book. The declaration consists of the common counts and three special counts. The latter declare upon the same principal sum of $2,200, alleged to have been deposited by said Emma L. with defendant bank on the day named above, which said sum the bank then and there received on deposit and agreed to repay the same to her or order on demand; that said deposit of $2,200 there afterwards remained in the bank until September 8, 1923, on which day repayment thereof was duly demanded by the plaintiff, but the bank refused and still refuses to repay the same. The substantial difference between the special counts is that the first does not declare for interest on the principal sum, while each of the other two includes both, as did the demand made on the day named.
The bank filed its answer in that action, setting forth a general denial, payment, statute of limitations, and further, in paragraphs 4, 8, and 12 of the answer, it undertakes to defend on the ground of alleged laches arising from the long delay by Emma L. and her said guardian in making their present claim, and estoppel. To those paragraphs a demurrer was interposed, on the ground that the defense of laches is peculiar to courts of equity and is not available in an action at law, and that nothing is alleged in those paragraphs showing laches on the part of Emma L. or her guardian, nor a case for estoppel.
With the case standing in that way on the pleadings, the bank brought its bill of complaint against Justin M. Holman, as such guardian (it being the second above-entitled case), alleging the bringing of the action at law against it, and making the writ, answer, and demurrer therein a part of the bill of complaint, and further alleging substantially the same facts, though in some respects in enlarged form or with greater particularity, as were previously alleged in its answer filed in the case at law.
The bill alleges the receiving of the deposit in question by the bank from Emma L. on September 3, 1890, and the repayment of the same in full by the bank to her or her order prior to January 1, 1893 (the true date not known), thereby closing the account so that thereafter it never again appeared in the account books of the bank; that on the former day the bank kept, and hitherto has kept, regular and proper books of account, showing the names and deposits of all its depositors; that on September 3, 1890, the bank did not receive savings deposits, and this deposit to Emma L. was not with interest; that all the officers and directors of the bank at the time the deposit was made (naming them) died before January 1, 1914; that Osman B. Copeland became its cashier on or about October 14, 1896; that never since the time of the repayment of the deposit to her, as stated above, has Emma L. made any demand on the bank for payment thereof, nor has she within that period mentioned it to the bank or any of its officers; that at some time since 1920 Emma L became mentally incompetent, and in consequence thereof Justin M. Holman, her husband, on or about September 8, 1923, was appointed her guardian, and on that day he made demand upon the bank for the payment of said deposit, claiming that the same was still in the possession of the bank, and that no previous demand for its payment had ever been made by or for Emma L.; that the bank through its cashier then and there denied that it held the deposit mentioned, and refused payment, whereupon the action at law was immediately brought to recover the sum demanded, including interest thereon.
The bill further alleges that about January 1, 1913, the bank moved its place of business to a new location, and, acting on the advice of counsel, it then destroyed its book of account which showed the deposit in question, and the book which showed its repayment, as stated above, together with other old books and records of the bank; said books being so destroyed relying on the fact that for more than 20 years no claim or demand had been made by Emma L., or any one else in conflict with the books of account of the bank then in existence, and which showed that she had not said deposit. The bill reaffirms and asserts to be true each and all the facts alleged in the answer of the bank filed in the suit at law, in connection with its claim of laches on the part of Emma L., and again alleges that she was guilty of laches and of such conduct as to estop her guardian from asserting the claim now made by him in the action at law, and that the claim so asserted is stale and constitutes an inequitable demand, and that to permit that action to be pressed without the right to defend it on the ground of laches is to give the plaintiff therein an unfair advantage, and make the court an instrument of injustice, for which reason the court of chancery should interfere by injunction to prevent such advantage being upheld.
The material part of the prayer, waiving answer under oath, is in substance that the demand and claim of the guardian against the bank be decreed forever barred by the laches of his ward, Emma L. Holman, and that further prosecution of the suit at law be permanently enjoined.
Answer was filed by the defendant in this equity suit, therein insisting by way of demurrer that the bill (1) lacks any equity; (2) that the court of equity is without jurisdiction; (3) that the bank has a full, complete, and adequate remedy at law. These grounds of demurrer cover all material questions in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial