Six Little Tailors, Inc. v. Old South Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 26 May 1927 |
| Citation | 260 Mass. 41,156 N.E. 681 |
| Parties | SIX LITTLE TAILORS, Inc., v. OLD SOUTH TRUST CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Bishop, Judge.
Action by the Six Little Tailors, Inc., against the Old South Trust Company. On plaintiff's exceptions after granting of defendant's motion for directed verdict. Exceptions sustained.
N. Barnett, of Boston, for plaintiff.
S. L. Bailen, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of contract in two counts, both for the same cause of action, to recover for money lent or for money had and received. The answer is a general denial and no question is raised as to the legality of the contract. At the close of the evidence, each party moved for a directed verdict. The defendant's motion having been granted, the case is here on the plaintiff's exception.
[1][2][3] John R. McVey testified that he was president of the defendant trust company from the time of its organization to November, 1920; that the commissioner of banks, at his request, suspended the transaction of business of the defendant in December of 1919, and on July 10, 1920, relinquished possession and business was resumed; that subsequent to the last named date, after an interview with the commissioner at which the general situation of the trust company, apparently, was considered, and at his own expense, he invited the directors of the company to attend a banquet at which its treasurer and the treasurer of the plaintiff, together with a number of other guests, were present; that he then informed them that while the bank had reopened, ‘a situation had arisen which might preclude our going ahead in that the bank commissioner did not want to allow us to pay interest on savings deposits unless we had earned them during these three months prior to their declaration; that he thought we ought to pay six per cent. on our deposits during the period that we were closed, * * * that it was useless to try to go ahead because nobody wanted to keep money there for a year or over without getting an adequate return on it; and I asked these people that were present, depositors and friends and directors, to contribute whatever they felt they could afford, to help me in that situation; and I told them that, if we ever got into position that we could repay them, we would, just as soon as we could.’ And the plaintiff's treasurer also testified that the president ‘asked if the depositors wouldn't loan the bank as much as they could possibly spare to help them out of their difficulty.’ The plaintiff was a depositor in the commercial department and, on September 23, 1920, its treasurer, in response to this appeal for assistance, gave a check for $1,000, drawn on and payable to the defendant,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westminster Nat. Bank v. Graustein
...L. R. A. 364, 39 Am. St. Rep. 467;North Anson Lumber Co. v. Smith, 209 Mass. 333, 338, 95 N. E. 838;Six Little Tailors, Inc., v. Old South Trust Co., 260 Mass. 41, 44, 156 N. E. 681;Calkins v. Wire Hardware Co. (Mass.) 165 N. E. 889. No error appears in the finding of the master that the de......
-
Calkins v. Wire Hardware Co.
...v. Splane, 230 Mass. 281, 286, 287, 120 N. E. 66;Gross v. Cohen, 236 Mass. 468, 470, 128 N. E. 714;Six Little Tailors v. Old South Trust Co., 260 Mass. 41, 44, 156 N. E. 681. [24][25][26] The finding that Stuart G. Shepard is equitably estopped from asserting any illegality was justified by......
-
Westminster National Bank v. Ida S. Graustein
... ... railroad corporation had deposited with a trust company a ... special fund under an agreement with her and ... Co. 236 Mass. 138 ... Cohen & Hammond, Inc. v. Arnold, ... 250 Mass. 255 ... Harrison v. Fall River, ... Lumber Co. v. Smith, 209 Mass. 333 , 338. Six Little ... Tailors, Inc. v. Old South Trust Co. 260 Mass. 41 , ... ...
-
Lonergan v. Highland Trust Co.
...as possessed of such authority. His ostensible powers in these circumstances were his real powers. Six Little Tailors, Inc., v. Old South Trust Co., 260 Mass. 41, 44, 156 N. E. 681;Wasserman v. Cosmopolitan Trust Co., 252 Mass. 253, 256, 147 N. E. 742;Nowell v. Equitable Trust Co., 249 Mass......