Parker v. Central Trust Co.

• Citation: 71 S.W.2d 106
• Decision Date: 08 May 1934
• Docket Number: No. 22572.,22572.
• Parties: EMMA C. PARKER, CURATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM F. WIEMKIN, RESPONDENT, v. CENTRAL TRUST COMPANY OF ST. CHARLES, APPELLANT.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

71 S.W.2d 106

EMMA C. PARKER, CURATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM F. WIEMKIN, RESPONDENT, v. CENTRAL TRUST COMPANY OF ST. CHARLES, APPELLANT.

No. 22572.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

Opinion filed May 8, 1934.

Motion for rehearing overruled May 22, 1934.

Appeal from Circuit Court of St. Charles County. — Hon. Edgar B. Woolfolk, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions to deny plaintiff's claim a preference and allow the claim as a general claim only).

William Waye, Jr. for appellant.

(1) The deposit made by Emma C. Parker, as guardian and curatrix of William Wiemkin, in the Central Trust Company of St. Charles, was a general deposit. Paul v. Draper, 158 Mo. 197; Arnall v. Commercial Bank of Wellsville, 45 S.W. (2d) 909, l.c. 911; Wheelock v. Cantley, 50 S.W. (2d) 731; Butcher v. Butler, 134 Mo. App. 61. (2) Emma C. Parker, as guardian of the person and curatrix of the estate of William Wiemkin, was authorized under the laws of Missouri to collect the amount due her ward from the Federal Government and give acquittances and discharges therefor; and when said money was paid to her, the government had no further control over it. Sec. 471, R.S. of Mo., 1929. (3) The payment to the guardian and curatrix of the amounts due the ward under the World War Veteran's Act of 1924 for war risk insurance and disability compensation vested title in the ward and operated to discharge the obligation of the United States. And the deposit does not belong to the United States. Spicer v. Smith, Special Deputy Banking Com. et al., 53 Sup. Ct. Rep. 415, 244 Ky. 68, 50 S.W. (2d) 64; State ex rel. Robertson, Sup. of Banks v. Bank of Bristol, 55 S.W. (2d) 771.

Claude S. Tuttle and B.H. Dyer for respondent.

(1) A curatrix of the estate of an insane ward has no authority to loan her ward's money to a bank. Sec. 507, R.S. of Mo., 1929; Sec. 418, R.S. of Mo., 1929; In re Farmer's Exchange Bank of Gallatin, 37 S.W. (2d) 936. (2) The relationship of debtor and creditor, or banker and creditor, is a contractual relation, and can be entered into only by persons who have the capacity to make such a contract. 3 R.C.L. 556, sec. 183; City of Doniphan v. Cantley, 52 S.W. (2d) 417; In re Cameron Trust Co., 51 S.W. (2d) 1025. (3) Where an agent depositing money in bank does so against his authority, the bank, knowing at the time that the agent has no authority to make the deposit, obtains no title to the money so deposited, but holds it as trustee for the owner. Andrews v. Farmers Trust Co., 21 S.W. (2d) 641; City of Macon v. Farmers Trust Co., 21 S.W. (2d) 643; City of Doniphan v. Cantley, 52 S.W. (2d) 417; Everton Special Road District v. Bank of Everton, 55 S.W. (2d) 335. (4) One who knowingly takes title to property which is subject to trust, himself becomes a trustee, ex maleficio, of that property. Elliott v. Machine Co., 236 Mo. 546, l.c. 561-3; Case v. Goodman, 250 Mo. 112; Price v. Morrison, 291 Mo. 249, l.c. 265-6; Wm. R. Compton Co. v. Farmers Trust Co., 220 Mo. App. 1081, 279 S.W. 746; Harrison Tp., Vernon County v. Peoples State Bank, 46 S.W. (2d) 165. (5) A bank receiving a deposit of money from one who, having custody thereof, yet has no authority to make such deposit, the bank having knowledge at the time that such depositor cannot lawfully make the deposit, takes only the title of a trustee to such deposit, and must account therefor, to the real owner. Harrison Tp., Vernon County v. Peoples State Bank, 46 S.W. (2d) 165; In re Farmers Exchange Bank of Gallatin, 37 S.W. (2d) 936; State ex rel. Gentry v. Page Bank of St. Louis County, 14 S.W. (2d) 597; Clearmont School District v. Jackson Bank of Clearmont, 37 S.W. (2d) 1006; Special Road District v. Cantley, 8 S.W. (2d) 944; Consolidated School District v. Bank, 21 S.W. (2d) 781; In re Cameron Trust Co., 51 S.W. (2d) 1025; City of Aurora v. Bank of Aurora, 52 S.W. (2d) 496; Consolidated School District No. 5 v. Parma Bank, 52 S.W. (2d) 425; White v. Greenlee, 49 S.W. (2d) 132; Everton Special Road Dist. v. Bank of Everton, 55 S.W. (2d) 336.

BECKER, J.

Emma C. Parker, guardian of the person and curatrix of the estate of William F Wiemken, a person of unsound mind, had on deposit with the Central Trust Company of St. Charles, Missouri, certain moneys, as curatrix, on January 5, 1931, on which day the said bank closed its doors and was taken over by the Commissioner of Finance of the State of Missouri for liquidation. She had her claim in the sum of $734.34 allowed and classified as a preferred claim in the Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Missouri. The Commissioner of Finance in due course appeals.

It is apparent from the record before us that the learned trial judge below allowed the claim of the curatrix as a preferred claim in the belief and upon the theory that the claim was entitled to preference because the fund which went to make up the balance of the deposit on hand at the time the bank was taken over by the Commissioner of Finance was made up of moneys received as compensation for her ward as a disabled war veteran from the veteran's bureau, and that such moneys as the curatrix had received and placed on deposit remained the money of the United States until it actually reached her ward. Here on appeal, however, respondent completely abandons that theory of her case, as she must in fact, in light of the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in Spicer v. Smith, etc., 53 U.S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 415, wherein it is specifically held that payments under the World War Veteran's Act to a guardian, vests title in the ward and operates to discharge the obligation of the United States in respect to such installments, and that when such payments are deposited by a guardian or curatrix the deposit does not belong to the United States, and, therefore, as indebtedness to it is essential to priority in a claim against an insolvent bank, the guardian's claim for a deposit in an insolvent bank cannot be held to be entitled to priority or be allowed as a preferred claim. See also Duzan v. Cantley, etc. (Mo. App.), 55 S.W. (2d) 711, in which case a certificate of time deposit issued to a beneficiary of a war risk policy for funds derived therefrom are held not entitled to preferred standing upon the insolvency of the bank.

The respondent here on appeal seeks to support the allowance of her claim as a preferred one upon the theory that since Section 507, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1929, Mo. Stat. Ann., sec. 507, p. 304, provides that guardians and curators of insane persons shall be authorized and required to loan money belonging to the estate of such insane person in the manner and under like circumstances as other guardians and curators are now required by law who loan money of their wards, therefore, since Section 418, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1929, Mo. Stat. Ann., sec. 418, p. 264, provides that "curators shall ... loan the money of their wards at the highest legal rate of interest that can be obtained, on prime real estate security, or invest it in bonds of the United States, or of the State of Missouri, or of the Federal Farm Loan Bank,...