Williams v. People's Bank

• Decision Date: 07 December 1923
• Docket Number: No. 3496.,3496.
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. PEOPLE'S BANK OF SPRINGFIELD et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

257 S.W. 192

WILLIAMS v. PEOPLE'S BANK OF SPRINGFIELD et al.

No. 3496.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 7, 1923.

Rehearing Denied January 8, 1924.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Orin Patterson, Judge.

Action by Henry F. Williams, administrator de bonis non of the estate of William H. Williams, deceased, against the People's Bank of Springfield, which interpleaded E. T. Williams as a party defendant. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Frank B. Williams and John T. Sturgis, both of Springfield, for appellant.

Hamlin & Hamlin and C. W. Hamlin, all of Springfield, for respondents.

COX, P. J.

After the issues were made up in the trial court E. T. Williams filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was sustained by the court, and plaintiff's action abated and his petition dismissed.

From the pleadings we gather the following facts:

Prior to February, 1923, E. T. Williams was administrator of the estate of William H. Williams, deceased. At the February, 1923, term of the Greene county probate court the letters of said E. T. Williams as administrator were revoked, and plaintiff, Henry F. Williams, appointed administrator de bonis non in his stead. In April, 1923, E. T. Williams filed a statement for final settlement in the probate court, and that settlement was pending when this case was heard in the circuit court, but whether filed in the probate court before or after this suit was begun does not appear. The case, however, has proceeded in this court on the assumption that the settlement was filed in the probate, court before this suit was begun. After the appointment of plaintiff as administrator de bonis non he made demand upon the People's Bank of Springfield for the payment to him of $4,683.36 which he claimed the bank had on deposit as founds belonging to the estate of William H. Williams. He also demanded United States government bonds of the face value of $550 and accrued interest making a total of $600. The bank refused to pay any money to plaintiff or to deliver to him the government bonds or their value. The plaintiff then sued the bank. The petition contains two counts: The first count is for the recovery of $4,683.36 as money had and received by reason of having been deposited with the bank by the former administrator as funds of the estate. The second count is for conversion of the government bonds, and asks judgment for $600, the face of the bonds, and accrued interest. The bank answered with a general denial followed by an interplea under section 11766, R. S. 1919, in which it admitted having on deposit the sum of $4,555.16, in the name of E. T. Williams, administrator, admitted that the government bonds described in the petition were deposited with it by the same party as administrator, and then alleged that E. T. Williams, the former administrator, was claiming the funds and bonds in its possession, and asked that he be made a party defendant. This interplea was sustained by the court, and said E. T. Williams ordered made a party defendant.

Williams then appeared and answered. In this answer he alleged that not more than the sum of $1,940.73 of the money deposited by him in defendant bank was the property of the estate of William H. Williams, deceased; that the remainder of the money on deposit was the property of third parties as money received on the collection of certain notes which had belonged to the estate and had been sold to these third parties. He then alleged that his final settlement as administrator was at that time pending and undetermined in the probate court, and that all the questions raised in this case in relation to the money on deposit in defendant bank were involved in that settlement, and it could not be determined whether he was indebted to the estate in any sum or required to pay over to the plaintiff any part of the money on deposit in the bank until his final settlement should be finally determined in the probate court, and for that reason the suit of plaintiff had been prematurely brought, and should be abated and his petition dismissed. Practically the same answer was made to plaintiff's claim for the conversion of the government bonds.

The reply of plaintiff admitted that the final settlement of E. T. Williams, the former administrator, was still pending in the probate court; alleged that exceptions to that settlement had been filed by the heirs and distributees of the estate; and then alleged further that said exceptors had given their written consent for the bank to pay the money on deposit to plaintiff. All other allegations of the answer were denied.

After the filing of the reply by plaintiff, the defendant E. T. Williams, filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings which was sustained by the court, and this appeal followed.

There are but two question's presented for our determination in this record. They are: First, whether the so-called interplea of the bank was properly sustained and E. T. Williams properly made a party. If that step was proper, then the further question arises as to the propriety of the court's action in sustaining the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Section 11766, Rev. Stat. 1913, under which the bank proceeded, is not, in our opinion, strictly speaking, an interplea statute. While it partakes largely of the nature of a general interplea, it seems to us to allow one element that is absent in the ordinary interplea. It will be noted in this case that the bank does not admit having on deposit as much money as is claimed by plaintiff. The answer of the bank to the first count of the petition of plaintiff was first a general denial. This was followed by an admission that it had on deposit $4,555.13 in the name of E. T. Williams, administrator. This left for litigation between plaintiff and the bank the sum of $128.20, the difference between the amount plaintiff claimed was on deposit with the bank and the amount it admitted having. It will be noted by reading the statute that, after providing that other parties claiming the fund may be made parties to the suit, it then provides that "the court shall thereupon proceed to determine the rights and interests of the several parties to the action in and to such funds." The section further provides that, in the discretion of the court, the money held by the bank may remain in the bank pending the litigation, or may be paid into court and the bank discharged as a party to the suit. Evidently the money could not be paid into court and the bank discharged until the correct amount for which the bank was liable had been ascertained, and the case might be required to be heard on its merits before that fact could be determined. It is further provided that the costs may be taxed in the discretion of the court, and may be charged upon the funds in the bank, but not necessarily so. When we consider all the provisions of this section together, we are of the opinion that a bank may take advantage of its terms and proceed under it without admitting that it holds the full amount claimed by plaintiff. It might be that no two of the interested parties would agree as to the proper amount for which the bank should be held responsible, but we do not think that fact would deprive the bank of its right to have all parties who might claim an interest in any part of the funds in the bank from being brought in, and have the entire matter settled in one proceeding without admitting that it held the full amount claimed by plaintiff. The action of the court in making E. T. Williams a party was justifiable under the facts appearing in this record.

The next question is: Was the trial court right in abating plaintiff's action and dismissing his petition on the pleadings? The court evidently took the position that the pendency of a settlement by the deposed administrator in the probate court was to be considered as another suit pending in another court involving the same matter between the same parties as this suit. With this position we do not agree. There was no dispute between the parties as to the ownership of the government bonds. The bank admitted having them in its custody for E. T. Willaims, administrator. E. T. Williams in his answer admitted that these bonds belonged to the estate. His only excise for not having delivered them to plaintiff was that it could not be ascertained how much, if any, he owed the...