Johnson v. National Bank of S. C. of Sumter

• Decision Date: 03 November 1948
• Docket Number: 16139.
• Citation: Johnson v. National Bank of S. C. of Sumter, 50 S.E.2d 177, 213 S.C. 458 (S.C. 1948)
• Parties: JOHNSON v. NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA OF SUMTER.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

50 S.E.2d 177

213 S.C. 458

JOHNSON v. NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA OF SUMTER.

No. 16139.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

November 3, 1948

Raymon Schwartz and L. E. Purdy, both of Sumter for appellant.

James Hugh McFaddin, of Manning, and G. Werber Bryan, of Sumter for respondent.

OXNER, Justice.

This action was brought to recover actual and punitive damages for the alleged wrongful dishonor of a check in the sum of $20 drawn upon the appellant bank by respondent on July 26, 1947. The bank denied liability. It further alleged that there was no account on its books in the name of respondent; that his mother and he had a joint account which could only be withdrawn by checks signed in the names of both depositors and that if respondent intended to draw upon the joint account, he was negligent in signing said check in his individual name. During the trial of the case appellant made timely motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict which were refused, except that the Court held that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the recovery of punitive damages. The jury returned a verdict in the sum of $1750. Upon motion for a new trial, the Court held that the verdict exceeded 'what might justly be regarded as a moderate amount,' and granted a new trial unless respondent remitted on the record the sum of $500. The remission was made and this appeal is from a judgment entered in the sum of $1250.

In 1943 respondent, while in the army, requestedn his mother to open an account with appellant. At that time he was stationed in Carolina and was about to go overseas. He was to furnish the funds to be deposited but the account was to be entered in both the name of himself and his mother in order to provide for any emergency. His mother procured from appellant what is termed a signature card upon which she listed the account as 'Susan E. Johnson & John E Johnson,' but did not fill out that portion relating to the signatures upon which the bank would be authorized to disburse the money. After signing this card, she sent it to her son in California who added his signature and it was duly delivered to the bank. The account was entered on the books however, as 'Susan E. Johnson or John E. Johnson' and was similarly listed thereafter by the bank in its monthly statements. It further appears that appellant consistently honored and charged against this account the individual checks of respondent and his mother. Respondent introduced in evidence over two hundred checks, in varying amounts and to various payees and extending over a period of about four years, signed by him individually which the bank promptly paid. A small number of cancelled checks similarly signed by his mother were also offered in evidence. Indeed, the record does not show that any checks were ever drawn against this account in the name of the joint depositors.

Respondent testified that after his discharge in 1945, he inquired of one of the officers of the bank whether checks signed by him would be honored and was told that they would. This officer testified that while he remembered respondent calling by the bank after returning home, he did not remember making the statement mentioned. He admitted, however, that checks on this account were supposed to be honored when signed by either of the parties.

The check in question was duly presented to the bank and returned unpaid with the statement that respondent had no account. The transaction was handled by a substitute bookkeeper who testified that she refused to pay the check because she was unable to locate any account on the books of the bank in the name of respondent.

We shall first consider whether the Court below erred in refusing appellant's motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict. The bank contends that the signature card shows a joint account requiring joint action of the depositors in withdrawing the funds or at least that checks issued against the account be signed in the name of both depositors, and that it could not have properly honored a check against this account when signed by either of the depositors individually.

The manner in which funds may be withdrawn from a bank must be determined by the contract between the depositor and the bank. It is true that where there is a joint deposit, unless otherwise agreed upon or fixed by statute, the bank must have the signatures of all joint depositors appended to a check before it is authorized to pay it. 9 C.J.S., Banks and Banking, § 334, page 678; 7 Am.Jur., Banks, Section 509, page 363. But we do not agree that the undisputed testimony in the instant case shows a joint account. We are in accord with the following conclusions reached by the trial Judge: 'The signature card introduced in evidence indicated that it was a joint account, but the evidence was undisputed that it was never treated as such either by the bank or the depositors, and that on the contrary the account was entered on the books as an alternative account, in the names of 'Susan E. Johnson or John E. Johnson', and that the checks (excepting the one upon which this suit is brought) drawn by John E. Johnson against the account and signed in his name only were promptly and repeatedly honored by the bank.'

We think the nature of this deposit and the manner in which the money was to be witndrawn involved issues of fact which were properly submitted to the jury.

While conceding that ordinarily in an action of this kind it is not necessary for the plaintiff to establish negligence on the part of the bank, counsel for appellant state in their brief 'that in the circumstances of this case there can be no absolute liability in the absence of negligence.' Without undertaking to pass upon the correctness of this position, it is sufficient to say that the evidence reasonably supports an inference of negligence. Nor in view of the previous conduct of the bank in repeatedly honoring checks drawn on this account in the individual name of respondent can it be said that he was negligent as a...