Sykes v. City Sav. Bank

• Decision Date: 15 December 1897
• Citation: 115 Mich. 321,73 N.W. 369
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: SYKES v. CITY SAV. BANK.

73 N.W. 369

115 Mich. 321

SYKES v. CITY SAV. BANK.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 15, 1897

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Willard M. Lillibridge Judge.

Action by John Sykes against the City Savings Bank, garnishee of John Bommer. From a judgment for the defendant, the plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

Bowen, Douglas & Whiting, for appellant.

Frank D. Andrus, for appellee.

HOOKER J.

John Bommer was indebted to the plaintiff on a judgment recovered before a justice in 1883; and this judgment was sued in the circuit court, and a judgment was rendered there, October 13 1894, for $505.41, damages and costs, on which date the defendant was garnished. Its disclosure stated that it was not indebted to Bommer, and that it had no property belonging to him in its possession or under its control, whereupon an issue was framed, and the question went to a jury, a verdict being found in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment.

An outline of the facts disclosed by the testimony is as follows, viz.: Bommer was a brewer, and opened an account with the defendant by depositing on September 1, 1890, the sum of $3,230. This account was closed on July 7, 1894, by the withdrawal of his balance of $343.58, which was paid to him in cash. During the period mentioned, Christina Bommer his wife, sometimes made deposits to her husband's credit; but she never drew upon the account, or had any control over the money deposited. On receiving this sum of money ($343.58), Bommer paid it to his wife, who deposited it to her credit upon the same day that it was drawn from the bank by her husband. It is claimed upon behalf of the plaintiff that this was a voluntary transfer by Bommer, and is void as against the plaintiff, and that the fund may be reached by garnishment, as the money of Bommer. The learned circuit judge submitted to the jury the question whether this transfer was voluntary. It is contended by the defendant that this was error, for the reason that the undisputed testimony showed it to be such. The testimony offered on behalf of the plaintiff-for none was offered upon behalf of the defendant-shows that some years before this proceeding was commenced, but while Bommer owed the plaintiff, he (Bommer) bought a homestead for $2,150, title to which was taken in the names of himself and wife. This was paid for by a check upon the bank at a time when he had a balance to his credit of $4,600, as appears by the bank books, which plaintiff introduced. Subsequently a house and lot were purchased, and title taken in the name of Mrs Bommer and Mr. Bommer's mother. Bommer and wife borrowed $500; giving the defendant bank a joint note for $500 secured upon the homestead. This note was given upon September 12, 1891. Mrs. Bommer testified that, at the time of the purchase of the house and lot, Bommer's mother wanted the deed made to her, because she had furnished Bommer with money. After this time, Mrs. Bommer collected the rents from this property, amounting to $19 a month, and Bommer allowed her from $12 to $20 a month to provide for the family. From these sources she saved something, which after a time she was in the habit of letting her husband have upon request, and he used it in business. At first she deposited it in the bank to his credit, for she had no bank account. She admitted that she did not keep track of the amount, but says it exceeded the amount paid to her, and she also said that he made no express promise to repay her. She testified that this was her own money, and that he owed her for it, and that such was the understanding between them, and that she "saw that he was failing in business right along, and losing money, and she told him she wanted her money back, *** to pay off the [$500] mortgage," and he gave her the sum mentioned, and it was used, with money that she subsequently deposited, for that purpose. It is urged that this testimony does not show a promise to repay, or the recognition of contract relations; and cases are cited to support the proposition that when a woman allows her husband to use her money in his business, or gives it to him for that purpose, the law will presume that it is a gift. We do not question the fact that a wife may give her property to her husband, and the inference that it is a gift may be drawn from...