Munnerlyn v. Augusta Sa

• Decision Date: 07 December 1891
• Parties: Munnerlyn et al. v. Augusta Sav. Bank.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

14 S.E. 554

88 Ga. 333

Munnerlyn et al.

v.Augusta Sav. Bank.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 7, 1891.

Parties — Action by Trustee — Bank Deposit— Demand — Limitations—Conversion bY Trustee.

1. Trust money deposited in bank by a trustee to his credit as agent may be sued for by him as trustee, and it will not vitiate the action that he joins with himself in the suit the beneficiaries of the trust.

2. A cheek in favor of a third person, signed by the trustee as agent, and presented by the payee, is a sufficient demand for the repayment of the deposit, and upon refusal to pay the trustee's right of action becomes complete.

8. The deposit being general, and not evidenced by any regular certificate of deposit, or other writing fixing the time of payment, the statute of limitations does not commence to run in favor of the bank until demand and refusal, such demand not being delayed until the right has become stale.

4. It is not a conversion for the trustee to deposit trust money in bank to his credit as agent, though the bank may have knowledge of the trust.

5. Payment by the bank to the trustee on his checks will discharge it, whether such checks be signed with or without the designation of trustee.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Richmond county; H. C. Roney, Judge.

Suit by J. D. Munnerlyn, trustee, and others against the Augusta Savings Bank, to recover certain money on deposit. Judgment for defendant on dismissal of the-petition. Plaintiffs bring error. Reversed.

F. H. Miller and Lovett & Davis, for plaintiffs in error.

J. R. Larnore, for defendant in error.

Lumpkin, J. 1. When money is deposited in a bank it is immaterial, so far as the bank is concerned, in what capacity the depositor holds or owns it.

The obligation of the bank is simply to keep it safely, and return it to the proper person. Therefore, when a trustee deposits money in a bank to his credit as agent, the bank would be discharged by paying it back to the individual who made the deposit, and, in the absence of knowledge or notice to the contrary, would have the right to assume that he would appropriate the money to its proper uses and trusts. If this individual should go in person to the bank and demand the money, it cannot be doubted that the latter could and ought to hand it to him. This being true, he could recover the money from the bank by suit; and it will make no difference that in the action brought he designates himself as trustee, nor is it of any consequence that he joins with himself therein the alleged beneficiaries of the trust. Although the latter are not necessary parties, no injury-can ensue to defendant by making them actual parties to the case.

2, 3. It appearing from what has already been said that the person who actually puts money in bank is entitled to have it back upon demand, and that it is immaterial how he describes himself, there can be no doubt that a check drawn by such person as agent, and presented by the payee, is a sufficient demand for the amount of money called for by the check, especially when the money was credited to '.he depositor as agent. If payment of such check be refused, the depositor may bring suit, and, as already shown, the suit may be maintained by him described as trustee. It appears from the declaration in this case that the deposit made was a general one, and that the bank did not issue to the depositor any certificate of deposit promising a repayment of the money, or fixing any time or terms for repayment. It simply gave to the depositor written statements to the effect that his account as agent had been credited with so much money. Under these cir-cumstances, the bank did not become liable for a repayment of the money until after demand for...