Mfrs. Nat. Bank of Detroit v. Schirmer
| Decision Date | 23 December 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 56.,56. |
| Citation | 303 Mich. 598,6 N.W.2d 908 |
| Parties | MANUFACTURERS NAT. BANK OF DETROIT v. SCHIRMER et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Interpleader suit by the Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit against Janet Etta Sutherland Schirmer and Alexander Sutherland, individually and as administrator of the estate of Jessie G. Sutherland, deceased, to determine the ownership of certain moneys on deposit and in possession of the bank. From a decree in favor of the first named defendant, the last named defendant appeals.
Decree vacated and rendered. Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Vincent M. Brennan, Judge.
Before the Entire Bench.
Leonard F. Donaldson, of Detroit, for appellant.
Enrique Beeman, of Dearborn (Clarence T. Brown, of Dearborn, of counsel), for appellee Schirmer.
This is a chancery suit to determine the ownership of certain moneys on deposit and in the possession of plaintiff bank.
The facts have been stipulated and are as follows: On July 30, 1937, Jessie G. Sutherland, now deceased, had on deposit with the Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit in a savings account $1,020. On that date Mrs. Sutherland and her daughter, Janet Etta Sutherland Schirmer went to the bank together; and the mother withdrew the money from her savings account in her own name and opened a new savings account in the name of herself and her daughter payable to either while both were living and to the survivor upon the death of one of them. Thereafter deposits were made from funds furnished and belonging to the mother; so that on December 1, 1940, the new savings account had in it the sum of $3,258.21.
On December 1, 1940, the mother addressed the following communication to the bank:
‘December 1, 1940.
‘To Whom It May Concern:
‘Any withdrawals made against my account in the Manufacturers National Bank of Dearborn are without my consent and will leave the bank open to suit.
‘Jessie Sutherland.'
Jessie G. Sutherland died on December 9, 1940, and the status of the account in question was the same as it was on December 1, 1940, when the above communication was received by the bank. On December 13, 1940, defendant Alexander Sutherland, son and only other child of the deceased, was appointed administrator of his mother's estate by consent of the father and daughter. On December 26, 1940, the daughter, who had possession of the pass book, delivered it to her brother, the administrator. She testified that her brother asked for it stating he was administrator. The brother testified that he asked for the pass book so that he could transfer the funds into the account of the administrator from the joint account. The administrator delivered the pass book to the bank. The joint account was closed out by the bank and the funds therein transferred to the administrator's account in the same bank.
On March 21, 1941, the daughter filed an action at law against the bank claiming ownership of the funds by reason of her survivorship. On April 21, 1941, the bank filed suit of interpleader in chancery alleging the holding of funds and requesting the chancery court to determine the rightful owner thereof. Both cases were consolidated. The law case was then dismissed without prejudice and the issues involved were tried out in the instant chancery suit on the bank's bill of interpleader.
The trial court found that ‘there was no allegation or proof of any fraud, undue influence, or misrepresentation of any kind’; and entered a decree in favor of Janet Etta Sutherland Schirmer. Defendant Alexander Sutherland, individually and as administrator, appeals and contends that no joint account existed after delivery of the notice to the bank.
Act No. 286, Pub.Acts 1937 (Stat.Ann.1942 Supp. § 23.303) 3 Comp.Laws 1929, § 12063, controls the deposits in this case and reads:
‘When a deposit shall be made, in any bank by any person in the name of such depositor or any other person, and in form to be paid to either or the survivor of them, such deposits thereupon and any additions thereto, made by either...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Lewis v. Rosebrook
...Power of One Party to Joint Bank Account to Terminate the Interests of the Other , 161 A.L.R. 71 ; see also Mfr. Nat'l Bank v. Schirmer , 303 Mich. 598, 603, 6 N.W.2d 908 (1942) ; Rasey v. Currey’s Estate , 265 Mich. 597, 601-602, 251 N.W. 784 (1933) ; Sasanas v. Mfr’s Nat'l Bank of Detroit......
-
Department of Treasury, Revenue Div. v. Comerica Bank
...in a joint account, the "actual property rights of the respective parties" are "open to adjudication." Manufacturers Nat'l Bank v. Schirmer, 303 Mich. 598, 603, 6 N.W.2d 908 (1942); see also Esling, supra at 578, 270 N.W. 791 ("realities of ownership" determined if "a contest in the courts"......
-
Cebulak v. Lewis
...evidence when challenged by rebutting testimony. Allstaedt v. Ochs, 302 Mich. 232, 4 N.W.2d 530,5 N.W.2d 433;Manufacturers National Bank v. Schirmer, 303 Mich. 598, 6 N.W.2d 908;Mitts v. Williams, 319 Mich. 417, 29 N.W.2d 841;Pence v. Wessels, 1948, 320 Mich. 195, 30 N.W.2d 834. The same re......
-
Mitts v. Williams
...when challenged by rebutting testimony. Hill v. Hairston, 299 Mich. 672, 1 N.W.2d 34.’ Of like import is Manufacturers National Bank v. Schirmer, 303 Mich. 598, 6 N.W.2d 908. In the absence of competent proof sufficient to permit the issue to be determined on the basis of the facts the pres......