Knecht v. United States Sav. Inst.

• Decision Date: 26 June 1876
• Citation: 2 Mo.App. 563
• Parties: ROBERT KNECHT, Administrator of C. H. ROEDEL, deceased, Appellant, v. THE UNITED STATES SAVINGS INSTITUTION, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

2 Mo.App. 563

ROBERT KNECHT, Administrator of C. H. ROEDEL, deceased, Appellant,

v.THE UNITED STATES SAVINGS INSTITUTION, Respondent.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Jun. 26, 1876.

1. The relation existing between a bank and its depositor on current account is that of debtor and creditor. Accordingly, where a bank held a note against a depositor at the time of his death, which was larger in amount than the sum on deposit, the bank might present its claim in the Probate Court and have a balance struck between the two demands. The allowance thus entered is res adjudicata, and is conclusive against an action by the administrator to recover the money on deposit.

2. The credit entered by the bank, of the sum deposited, on its demand against the estate was not a voluntary credit, but was compulsory, under the statutory oath of the claimant.

APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Affirmed.

Gottschalk, for appellant.

Slayback & Haeussler, for respondent, cited: Wag. Stat. 103, sec. 11; Wag. Stat. 104, sec. 22.

LEWIS, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff's intestate was a depositor on current account with the defendant, a banking institution. At the time of his death there stood to his credit the sum of $1,177.70, while the bank held a draft, not yet matured, for $4,000, which he would be liable to pay when due. Plaintiff, as administrator, demanded the balance of the deposit, which defendant refused to pay. When the deposit became payable, defendant presented in the Probate Court, for allowance against the estate, its account current, including the amount of the draft, and giving credit for the deposit balance, whereby a balance appeared in defendant's favor of $2,825.55, which was allowed and classified in due form. Afterwards this suit was instituted by the plaintiff, administrator, to recover the intestate's deposit balance, notwithstanding the proceedings in the Probate Court. The cause was heard without a jury, and judgment rendered for the defendant.

The plaintiff appears to have fallen into the common error of supposing that, in bank deposits on current account, the bank is a mere custodian, agent, or trustee of the depositor. If such were the relation between the parties, there might have been some ground for the present action. The attempt has often been made, both in England and America, to attach that relation to such cases, but has always failed. The whole current of authority, without any considerable dissent, is to the effect that the ordinary relation existing between a bank and its current...