Martin v. Meyerheim
| Decision Date | 04 April 1931 |
| Citation | 133 So. 636,101 Fla. 82 |
| Parties | MARTIN, Governor, for Use of AUTH v. MEYERHEIM et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Commissioners' Decision.
Suit by John W. Martin, as Governor or the state, for the use of Herman Oscar Auth, against F. Meyerheim and another. From a decree dismissing the bill of complaint, complainant appeals.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
Deposits by the customers or clients of a commercial bank therewith are of two classes, viz., special or specific, and general. When the identical money or other thing deposited is to be restored, or is given to the bank for some specified and particular purpose, as to pay a certain note or other indebtedness, or is received by the bank as a collecting agent, such collection to be remitted, such deposits are special or specific, and the property in the deposit remains in the depositor, the bank in such cases becomes the bailee trustee, or agent for the depositor. General deposits in a commercial bank comprise all moneys that are simply deposited therewith on account of the depositor without being complicated by any other transaction than that of the depositing and withdrawing of the moneys by the customer from time to time. Such a deposit transfers the ownership of the money to the bank, and the relationship with reference thereto as between the bank and the depositor is simply that of debtor and creditor at common law. The original and every subsequent general deposit is in strict legal effect a loan by the customer to the bank.
A bank becomes the absolute owner of money deposited with it to the general credit of a depositor, in the absence of any special agreement importing a different character into the transaction, and the relationship between the parties is simply that of debtor and creditor.
Deposits made in a bank by those acting in a fiduciary capacity and credited to them as such fiduciaries, in the absence of special agreement or statute to the contrary, are general deposits; and upon failure of the bank, the beneficiaries have no preferential claims to assets of the bank in the hands of its receiver.
Cash bonds deposited in banks in compliance with the provisions of section 8334(6037), Compiled General Laws of Florida 1927 become general deposits with the title thereto in the bank.
As a general rule, where trust funds are without authority, or are unlawfully deposited by the trustee with the bank's knowledge, the relationship of debtor and creditor is not created, but the bank holds the money as trustee; and, if it subsequently becomes insolvent, the beneficiary has a preferred claim as against general creditors if the fund can be traced.
Where a cash bond is deposited in a bank by a justice of the peace to the credit of himself, 'Justice of the Peace,' and not 'as trustee' for the state and for the defendant and it is not shown that the bank was a party to any fraud or that it was wrongfully used by the justice of the peace with the knowledge of the bank, it cannot be said that the deposit was unlawfully made.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval County; George Couper Gibbs, judge.
D. C. C.ampbell, of Jacksonville, for appellant.
Walter F. Rogers, of Jacksonville, for appellees.
One Herman Oscar Auth left with one A. Greenberg, a justice of the peace, the sum of $500 as a cash bond for his appearance in the criminal court of record of Duval county. Afterwards he fulfilled the conditions of his bond and demanded of the justice of the peace the return of his money which was refused, the officer giving as a reason for such refusal that the money had been deposited by him in the Bank of South Jacksonville, a state banking corporation, and that such bank had failed and was then in the hands of a receiver. Thereupon appellant filed his bill against the justice of the peace, his official bondsmen, and the receiver of the said bank, wherein he prayed that the justice of the peace and his bondsmen be required to pay to him the said sum of money or that the receiver be required to pay it out of funds in his hands, as such receiver, and also for an accounting.
The said deposit was credited by the bank to 'A. Greenberg, Justice of the Peace,' and it is alleged in the bill that the said bank knew that said cash bond funds were deposited and credited to that account and that it also knew that said $500 was a cash bond trust fund and 'that said Bank and its said Receiver commingled and confused said Cash Bond Trust Fund with their other funds; and thereby said Bank and its said Receiver also became and remain equally liable for said $500.00 Cash Bond Trust Fund.'
At a hearing upon demurrers interposed by the receiver and the bondsmen, the court dismissed the bill of complaint on the ground that it was without equity.
The receiver insists that, inasmuch as the bill does not show that the appellant filed his claim with the receiver within one year from the date of the failure of the bank as required by section 1, chapter 7935, Laws of Florida 1919, section 6104, Compiled General Laws of Florida 1927, the bill was properly dismissed, the complainant's claim, if any, being barred by the statute.
The bill, as amended, does not charge that a claim was filed by the appellant with the receiver for the amount alleged to have been given to the justice of the peace as a cash bond for appearance, nor is it alleged therein that the justice of the peace filed a sworn claim with the receiver for such amount; but it is alleged that, within twelve months next before the filing of the original bill, the receiver paid to the justice of the peace a distribution of 12 per cent. of said account, and it is contended that the receiver, by paying such amount, waived any additional proof of claim on the part of the justice of the peace or of the appellant.
It is not made to appear that the said sum of $500 was deposited to the credit of A. Greenberg 'as trustee for the State and for the defendant' (appellant), but it is alleged that said sum was deposited to the credit of 'A. Greenberg, justice of the peace,' in which account he also deposited other funds.
If the said cash bond had been deposited in the name of A. Greenberg, as trustee for the state and for the appellant, then without question the deposit would have been made in strict compliance with the provisions of our statute.
Complainant does not allege that any misappropriation of the said sum of $500 was intended or effected by the deposit being made as it was or by the manner in which the account was kept, nor is it charged that, at the time of the failure of the bank, the amount due on the account was not properly credited; and it is not made to appear that such account included deposits of funds belonging to A. Greenberg, as an individual.
Section 8334(6037), Compiled General Laws of Florida 1927, provides as follows:
The primary purpose of this statute was to enable defendants in criminal cases to put up cash in lieu of surety bonds when allowed to give appearance bonds. To obviate the hazards accompanying receipt and custody of cash bonds, as well as to protect against loss of the funds, the magistrate or other officer whose duty it is to accept in criminal cases appearance bonds, the Legislature made it mandatory that such bonds be deposited in some bank. In the absence of the mandatory provision of the statute, it would be the duty of the custodian of such funds to exercise that degree of care and prudence in caring for same that ordinarily prudent men exercise in regard to their own affairs, and, if such funds were deposited by him in his name as trustee in a reputable bank, he would not be liable for any loss which might occur through the failure of the bank. 26 R. C. L. 1314-1316; 1 Perry on Trusts (7th Ed.) 739, § 443; Officer v. Officer, 120 Iowa, 389, 94 N.W. 947, 98 Am. St. Rep. 365, and note.
Recognizing that there was a certain amount of risk attendant upon the keeping of such funds, the Legislature sought to avoid the risk by requiring cash bonds to be deposited in any bank, and thus relieve the custodian thereof of the responsibility of keeping same. It will be observed that the Legislature did not require such deposit to be special or specific or general, but merely that said funds should be 'deposited,' etc.; and hence it is necessary for us to consider what was intended by the Legislature when it used, without qualifications, the word 'deposited,' as it appears in the statute.
In Collins v. State, 33 Fla. 429, 15 So. 214, 217, this court held that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Meridian Asset Management, Inc.
...as fiduciaries such as trustees, executors, administrators, and agents are characterized as general deposits, Martin v. Meyerheim, 101 Fla. 82, 83, 89, 133 So. 636, 639 (Fla.1931), and general deposits are merely arms-length transactions in which the bank owes no fiduciary responsibilities.......
-
Hart v. Savary
... ... and purpose of the parties with respect to the funds ... Tinsley v. Amos, 102 Fla. 1, 135 So. 397. See, also, ... Martin, as Governor, v. Meyerheim et al., 101 Fla ... 82, 133 So. 636 ... The ... record shows that the money involved here constituted a ... ...
-
Hardesty v. Smith
... ... Andrews v. First National Bank of Tampa, 115 Fla ... 67, 155 So. 143 ... There ... is nothing said in Martin v. Meyerheim et al., 101 ... Fla. 82, 133 So. 636, nor in Tinsley v. Amos, 102 ... Fla. 1, 135 So. 397, which conflicts with the view above ... ...
- Bryant v. Bryant