Reichert v. Am. State Sav. Bank
| Decision Date | 29 August 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 121.,121. |
| Citation | 249 N.W. 876,264 Mich. 366 |
| Parties | REICHERT, State Banking Commissioner, v. AMERICAN STATE SAV. BANK (W. T. GRANT CO., Intervener). |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Ingham County, in Chancery; Leland W. Carr, Judge.
Action by Rudolph E. Reichert, State Banking Commissioner, against American State Savings Bank, in which the W. T. Grant Company intervened. From an adverse judgment, intervening petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Carl H. Reynolds, of Lansing, for appellant.
Kelley, Sessions, Warner & Eger, of Lansing, for appellee.
The American State Savings Bank of Lansing, Mich., is in receivership. W. T. Grant Company intervened for the purpose of having certain money which it had intrusted to the bank for a specific purpose declared to be in the nature of a trust fund, and as such entitled to preference. The circuit judge denied preference, and allowed the claim in the sum of $8,152.20 as to a common creditor. The intervener has appealed and thereby seeks to have the order modified to the extent that $4,902.20 of the funds shall be declared to be a preferred claim.
From the agreed statement of facts, it appears that the W. T. Grant Company operates a chain of stores, one of which is located in Lansing, Mich. It did its banking business with the American State Savings Bank. On December 17, 1930, it addressed the following letter to the bank:
‘December 17, 1930.
‘Mr. Charles E. Toms, Vice-President, American State Savings Bank, Lansing, Michigan.
‘Dear Mr. Toms: For some time past, we have been working on a plan for the refinement of our present system of handling the transfers from our store depositories.
‘Thank you for your past cooperation, and we look forward to your acknowledgment of these revised instructions.
‘Very truly yours,
‘[Signed] John G. Byler, Treasurer.'
In pursuance of the arrangement suggested in this letter which was accepted by the bank, the company made daily deposits, and all amounts in excess of $3,250 the bank transmitted to the National Bank of the Republic by drafts upon funds which it had on deposit in its correspondent bank in Chicago, the Central Republic Bank & Trust Company. Deposits and remittances were made in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Security Nat. Bank Sav. & Trust Co. v. Moberly
...191 N.E. 475; Am. Law Institute Restatement of the Law of Trusts, p. 44; 1 Morse on Banks & Banking (6 Ed.), 510; Reichert v. Am. State Savs. Bank, 249 N.W. 876; Borgess Hospital v. Union Industrial Tr. & Savs. Bank of Flint, 251 N.W. 363; Northern Security Sugar Corp. v. Thompson, 13 F.2d ......
-
Union Guardian Trust Co. v. Emery
...it is to be set aside solely for that purpose and not mingled with the other funds of the bank. Reichert v. American State Savings Bank, 264 Mich. 366, 249 N.W. 876, 89 A.L.R. 1284;Borgess Hospital v. Union Industrial Trust & Savings Bank, 265 Mich. 156, 251 N.W. 363. ‘In order to justify t......
-
Oak Grove Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Almena State Bank of Almena
...or to their particular banks, were not trust funds entitling the companies to preferred claims. Reichert v. American State Savings Bank, 264 Mich. 366, 249 N. W. 876, 89 A. L. R. 1284;Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Citizens' National Bank (D. C.) 2 F. Supp. 29, affirmed Id. (C. C. A.) ......
-
Burton Drywall, Inc. v. Kaufman
... ... judgment on [69 MICHAPP 87] the ground that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. GCR 1963, 117.2(1). He ruled ... ...