Provident Institution For Savings In the Town of Boston v. Dana Malone
Decision Date | 29 May 1911 |
Docket Number | No. 151,151 |
Citation | 31 S.Ct. 661,221 U.S. 660,55 L.Ed. 899 |
Parties | PROVIDENT INSTITUTION FOR SAVINGS IN THE TOWN OF BOSTON, Plff. in Err., v. DANA MALONE, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
In 1907 the general court of the commonwealth of Massachusetts passed an act providing that deposits in savings banks which had remained inactive and unclaimed for thirty years, and where the claimant was unknown or the depositor could not be found, should be paid to the treasurer and receiver general.
Under this statute, which is copied in the margin,1 the attorney general on May 5th, 1908, filed in the probate court of Suffolk county a petition, setting out the mames and last known addresses of 226 persons who had deposit accounts ranging from $1 to $4,284 in the 'Provident Institution for Savings in the Town of Boston.' He alleged that for more than thirty years no part of the principal or interest had been withdrawn, no interest had been added upon any of the pass books, and no additional deposits had been made on any of the accounts; that no claimant for any of said deposits was known, and that the depositors could not be found. He thereupon prayed that the court would order the said sums of money, with the increases thereof, to be paid over to the treasurer and receiver general of the commonwealth. A copy of the petition was served on the bank, and a citation, addressed to the depositors, was published once in each week for three successive weeks in two newspapers in Boston, requiring them each to show cause on July 16, 1908, why the prayer of the petition should not be granted.
The savings bank alone answered. It admitted the allegations of the petition. It averred, however, that when each deposit was made, an agreement was signed by which the by-laws of the bank, made in pursuance of the charter granted December 11, 1816, were assented to by the depositor. These by-laws provided that regular semiannual dividends of 4 per cent should be declared on all deposits of $5 and over, and should be added to the principal; that no dividends should be paid on sums above $1,600; that no money could be withdrawn without the production of the pass book, and that by a vote of the trustees they might dissolve the institution at any time, and divide the whole property among the depositors, in proportion to their respective interests therein.
The bank contended that the act requiring deposits to be paid over to the receiver general deprived persons of their property without due process of law, and also impaired the obligation of contracts. After hearing, the probate court directed the bank to pay over and transfer to the treasurer and receiver general of the commonwealth the amounts deposited by the persons named in the petition. On appeal, that order was affirmed by the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts. 201 Mass. 23, ——L.R.A. (N. S.) , 86 N. E. 912.
Messrs. John C. Gray, William Ropes Trask, and Roland Gray for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Dana Malone and Fred T. Field for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Lamar, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:
The Massachusetts statute as to abandoned funds in saving banks only applies where the owner cannot be found. In the nature of the case, therefore, no depositor could except to the judgment of the probate court which directed the money to be turned over to the treasurer; and, it is claimed that, as the bank does not represent the depositors, it cannot be heard to raise the objection that their property has been taken without due process of law. New York ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 160, 51 L. ed. 422, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 188. This may be true, except in so far as its rights are involved in those of the depositor. Savings banks are maintained in the expectation that the deposits may, for years, remain uncalled for, to the mutual advantage of bank and customer. So that, if the statute had provided that the money should be paid over to the receiver general if the owner, after a short absence, could not be found, or if the account remained inactive for a brief period, a very different question would be presented from that arising under an act which deals with absence and nonaction so long continued as to suggest that the law of escheats or of lost property might be enforced. This, however, is not a statute of escheats, since it does...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney Gen. v. Pelletier
...527);Fifth Avenue Coach Co. v. New York, 221 U. S. 467, 31 Sup. Ct. 709, 55 L. Ed. 815;Provident Savings Institution v. Malone, 221 U. S. 660, 31 Sup. Ct. 661, 55 L. Ed. 899,34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1129;Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell, 222 U. S. 225, 32 Sup. Ct. 74, 56 L. Ed. 175, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 5......
-
Texaco, Inc v. Short Pond v. Walden
...no statutory obligation to use the interest in any manner, does not suggest abandonment. Cf. Provident Savings Institution v. Malone, 221 U.S. 660, 664, 31 S.Ct. 661, 663, 55 L.Ed. 899 (1911). Nor can the intent to abandon, or any independent state interest supporting the Indiana statute, b......
-
State v. Otis Elevator Co.
...therefore an integral part of the escheat process itself. State v. Standard Oil Co., cited supra; Provident Institution for Savings v. Malone, 221 U.S. 660, 31 S.Ct. 661, 55 L.Ed. 899 (1911); Security Savings Bank v. California, cited supra; Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Moore, s......
-
American Express Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Sidamon–Eristoff
...property interest belonging to the bank. [ Sec. Sav. Bank, 263 U.S. at 285–86, 44 S.Ct. 108]; Provident Institution for Sav. v. Malone, 221 U.S. 660, 665–66, 31 S.Ct. 661, 55 L.Ed. 899 (1911). Thus, “deposits are debtor obligations of the bank,” and a State may “protect the interests of dep......