Molendorp v. First National Bank of Sibley
| Decision Date | 18 March 1918 |
| Docket Number | 31746 |
| Citation | 166 N.W. 733,183 Iowa 174 |
| Parties | AIELT MOLENDORP, Administrator, Appellant, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SIBLEY, Appellee |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Osceola District Court.--WILLIAM HUTCHISON, Judge.
Affirmed.
W. C Garberson and Parsons & Mills, for appellant.
L. E Francis and Clark & Dwinell, for appellee.
THE opinion states the case.--Affirmed.
The admitted facts are substantially as follows: In March, 1914, the defendant issued and delivered to Peter Davids its certificate of deposit for the sum of $ 1,400. In June, 1914, Peter Davids died testate, leaving an estate of the value of $ 5,000 or more, including the certificate of deposit above mentioned. By the terms of his will, he devised and bequeathed the use of all his property and estate, real and personal, to his widow for life, with added power stated in words as follows:
"I also give my said wife the right to sell and dispose of any and all of my said property, either personal or real, if necessary for her comfort, and to use the avails thereof as in her judgment seems best, or to place the same at interest, and to control the same absolutely."
The will named as executor Ude Davids, son of the testator; but, for some reason not developed in the record, he appears not to have qualified under the appointment. In September, 1914, the widow presented the certificate of deposit, duly endorsed by her, to the defendant bank for payment; and the bank, understanding and believing her to be the rightful holder thereof, under the will of her husband, paid her the full amount thereof, principal and interest. Thereafter, the plaintiff, Molendorp, was appointed administrator, with will annexed, of the estate, and brought this action at law against the bank to recover the amount of said deposit for the benefit of said estate. In support of said claim, the petition alleges that the widow had no legal right or authority to collect the certificate of deposit; that the same was paid by the bank negligently and wrongfully; and that such payment had no effect to discharge the debt or to relieve the bank from its liability to account for said fund to the administrator. The defendant admits the deposit, and admits that it paid the amount thereof to the widow, but alleges that, under the terms of the will of Peter Davids, the widow was entitled to receive the money; that said sum was not needed or required by the administrator for the payment of debts, claims, or charges against the estate; and that, even if the payment to the widow was irregular, yet, as she is the one to whom the administrator would have been bound to account for it, had payment been made to him, the law will not exact payment the second time at the hands of the bank. There is no dispute that the estate already in the hands of the administrator is more than sufficient for the discharge of all claims of creditors and expenses of administration. Upon this showing, the trial court held that, as a matter of law, plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and there was a directed verdict and judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
The plaintiff's case is without legal merit, and the trial court did not err in entering judgment for the defendant. It is well settled by our decisions in cases of this character that, where a debt or claim due the estate of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial