Schluter v. Bowery Sav. Bank

• Decision Date: 01 November 1889
• Parties: SCHLUTER v. BOWERY SAV. BANK.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

117 N.Y. 125

22 N.E. 572

SCHLUTER

v.BOWERY SAV. BANK.¹

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 1, 1889.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, first department.

This action was brought by Eliza Schluter, as administratrix of Antoinette Knittel, against the Bowery Savings Bank. The grounds of the action are as follows: In October, 1872, Margaret Knittel, then a married woman, deposited in the Bowery Savings Bank the money claimed in this action, in trust for Antoinette Knittel, which was entered upon the books of the bank, and the pass-book belonging to Mrs. Knittel, as follows: ‘Bowery Savings Bank, in account with Margaret Knittel, in trust for Antoinette Knittel.’ Antoinette was then an infant about six years old, and lived with her parents in this state. Subsequently, they moved to the state of New Jersey, where they lived until June, 1875, where Mrs. Knittel died. Her husband took out letters of administration on her estate in the state of New Jersey; and on October 22, 1875, the defendant paid to him, as such administrator, the deposit, with the interest thereon, then amounting to $629.40. Mrs. Knittel, in fact, left a last will and testament, which was subsequently, on the 17th day of November, 1875, admitted to probate by the surrogate of the county of New York, and letters testamentary were issued to Louis Sier, the executor named in the will. Soon thereafter, he demanded payment of the deposit to him, which was refused. On the 18th day of December, 1885, Antoinette, who continued to reside in the state of New Jersey, died, and the plaintiff was, on the 14th day of May thereafter, appointed by the surrogate of New York administratrix of her estate. She then demanded payment of the deposit, and the interest thereon, which was refused, and then this action was commenced. The action was brought to trial at a circuit, and at the close of the evidence the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant on the ground that the payment to the administrator of Mrs. Knittel discharged the defendant. From the judgment entered upon the verdict the plaintiff appealed to the general term, and then to this court.

John McCrone, for appellant.

Carlisle Norwood, Jr., for respondent.

EARL, J., ( after stating the facts substantially as above.)

The defendant was incorporated by the act, chapter 229 of the Laws of 1834; and by section 6 of that act it was provided that deposits therein should be repaid to each depositor when required, and at such time, and with such interest, and under such regulations, as the board of managers from time to time prescribed. One of the by-laws of the defendant, printed in the pass-book which was delivered to the depositor, provided that on the decease of any depositor the amount standing to the credit of the deceased should be paid to his or her legal representatives. We have several times held that by such a deposit the depositor constituted himself or herself a trustee, and that the title to the fund was thereby transferred from the depositor individually to the depositor as trustee; and in Boone v. Bank, 84 N. Y. 83, a case entirely similar to this, we held that payment of the deposit to the administrator of the depositor, in the absence of any notice from the beneficiary, was good and effectual to discharge the savings bank; and it is unnecessary now to repeat the reasoning of the opinion in that case. Here there was no notice to the bank from the beneficiary, and the payment to the administrator of Mrs. Knittel was made in entire good faith.

But the claim is made that because Mr. Knittel was a foreign administrator, deriving his authority from administration granted in the state of New Jersey, he was not the personal representative of the deceased, and that therefore payment could not legally be made to him. Payment to the personal representative is good, because at the death of the intestate he becomes entitled to all his personal property wherever situated, and, having the legal title thereto, he can demand payment of choses in action; and a payment to him made anywhere, in the absence of any conflicting claim existing at the time, is valid. It is true that, if the defendant had declined payment, the foreign administrator could not have brought action in this state to enforce it. But a voluntary payment to such an administrator has always been held valid. Therefore, in receiving this payment, Mr. Knittel was the...