Second Nat. Bank of Baltimore v. Wrightson

• Decision Date: 16 January 1885
• Parties: THE SECOND NATIONAL BANK OF BALTIMORE v. THOMAS S. WRIGHTSON, Ex'r of Samuel Stine.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

63 Md. 81

THE SECOND NATIONAL BANK OF BALTIMORE v. THOMAS S. WRIGHTSON, Ex'r of Samuel Stine.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 16, 1885

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

The cause was argued before ALVEY, C.J., STONE, MILLER, ROBINSON and BRYAN, JJ.

J Wilson Leakin and Luther M. Reynolds for the appellant.

R E. Jordan and H. P. Jordan for the appellee.

Stone J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The motion to dismiss the appeal in this case must be overruled. As we shall affirm the orders appealed from, and as the result will be the same to the parties, whether the appeal is dismissed or the orders affirmed, we do not think it necessary to state at length the reasons for overruling the motion to dismiss.

Samuel Stines, the appellee's testator, deposited with the appellant $1000, and took a certificate of deposit in the following terms:

$1000. Certificate of Deposit.

Second National Bank of Baltimore, Md.

December 13, 1880.

Samuel Stines has deposited in this bank one thousand dollars payable to the order of himself or Ellen Stines, on the return of this certificate.

No 15,280. J. H. BAWDEN,

Per Smith, Cashier.

Samuel Stines died in April, 1881, before the withdrawal of $1000, or any part of it, leaving Ellen Stines, his wife, surviving him. A few days after the death of Samuel, his wife Ellen presented to the appellant the certificate of deposit, and drew from the bank the whole amount. Some time afterwards, Wrightson, the appellee, took out letters testamentary upon the estate of Samuel Stines, and brought an action at law against the bank to recover $1000, upon the ground that the bank had no authority, under the terms of that certificate, to pay over to Ellen Stines this money after the death of Samuel.

Before the case at law was tried the appellant filed a bill in equity, praying that the suit at law might be enjoined, and that the certificate might be reformed, alleging that it was not drawn in conformity with the agreement of the parties.

The court below granted an injunction, and a good deal of proof was taken, and the court finally decided in substance that the appellant should pay over to the appellee $1000, less so much of it as appeared to have been received by the appellee, Wrightson, from Ellen Stines, and applied to the payment of the funeral expenses and debts of Samuel, and from this order the appeal is taken.

A certificate of deposit, drawn like the one before us, did not authorize the payment of the money to Ellen Stines after the death of Samuel Stines. This is no longer an open question in this State, but is fully settled in Murray v. Cannon, 41 Md. 466, and Taylor v. Henry, 48 Md. 550. Indeed, this principle is fully recognized by the appellant, who seeks to have the certificate reformed.

The appellant also seeks to shelter itself under the plea of a want of notice of the death of Samuel Stines before the payment of the deposit. While...