86 F. 257 | 9th Cir. | 1898
after stating the case as above, delivered the following opinion:
In determining the sufficiency of the bill of complaint, the important question is whether the order of the New York bank to the Helena, bank to pay the plaintiff the sum of $2,0:55 was in the nature of a special deposit for that purpose. When the plaintiff called on the Helena bank for the money transmitted to it by the New York bank for his account, the officers of the Helena bank admitted, in effect, that the bank had that particular deposit for him, but refused to pay it, except by giving exchange on the New York bank, or by placing the amount to his credit in the Helena bank. The refusal of the plaintiff to accept either proposition as a payment of the order telegraphed by the New York bank fixed the character of the deposit in the Helena bank as a special deposit for the plaintiff, and subject to the law governing such deposits. The relation of debtor and creditor was not established. It was precisely the relation which the plaintiff refused to accept. The Helena bank wa.s unquestionably the agent of the New York bank to pay the plaintiff a specified' sum of money, but when the Helena bank refused to make the payment as directed by the New York bank, and undertook to deal with the plain! iff on its own account, it admitted that it had in its possession the specific sum, and the bank and its receiver are estopped from denying that such was the fact. In Marine Bank v. Fulton Bank, 2 Wall. 252, 256, the supreme court determined the character of a deposit that would create the reía tion of debtor and creditor, and at the same time clearly distinguish it from a transaction involving the trust feature of a special deposit. The Fulton Bank of New York sent two notes for collection to the Marine Bank of Chicago. The two notes were collected by the Marine Bank, and the proceeds placed to the credit of the New York bank. There being some trouble at that time about the currency, the Fulton Bank requested the Marine Bank to hold the avails of the collection, subject to order, and advise amount credited. Afterwards the Marine Bank sought to pay in the currency which it had received on the collection, then largely depreciated, but its claim in this respect was denied; Mr. Justice Miller, speaking for the court, saying:
“The truth undoubtedly is * * * that both partáis understood that when the money was collected plain tiff was to have credit with the defendant for the amount of the collection, and that defendant would use the money in ills business. Thus the defendant was guilty of no wrong in using the money, because it bad become its own. It was used by the bank in the same manner that it used the money deposited with it that day by city customers; and the relation between the two banks was the same as that between the Chicago bank and its city depositors. It would be a waste of argument to attempt to prove that this was a debtor and creditor relation. All deposits made with hankers may be divided into two classes, namely, those in which the bank becomes bailee of the de*260 positor, the title to the thing deposited remaining with the latter; and that other kind of deposit of money peculiar to hanking business, in which the depositor,' for his own convenience, parts with the title to his money, and loans it to the hanker, and the latter, in consideration of the loan of the money and the right to use it for his own profit, agrees to refund the same amount, or any part thereof, on.demand. The case before us is not of the former class. It must be of the latter.”
In the present case the plaintiff, as we have seen, not only did not authorize the Helena bank to give him credit on its books for the amount of the draft, but positively refused to accept such a credit. He declined to part with the title to his money, and refused to loan it to the bank for any purpose. It was a special deposit made by the New York bank in the execution of an express trust in which the title to the money was in the plaintiff.
In Farley v. Turner, 26 Law J. Ch. 710, the customer of-a bank, having a sum of £924 standing on his account, paid in a further sum of £707, with a written direction that £500 of that sum should be forwarded to another bank to meet a bill to become due. The £500 was sent as directed, but before the bill became due the latter bank ceased to carry on business. It was held that the £500 was specifically appropriated, and belonged to the customer of the bank receiving the deposit, and not to the general creditors of the suspended bank. As the bill had not become due when the bank failed, the title to the money remained in the original depositor. In the present case the title had been transferred to the payee before the bank closed.
It is objected, however, to the claim of a special deposit, that it does not appear from the complaint that there was in the bank from August 30th to September 4th, continuously, a sum of money equal to or greater than $2,635, the amount in question. This objection is based upon observations to be found in decisions of the court that it is not important that the special deposit claimed to have been made in the suspended bank should bear some mark by which it might be identified. It will be sufficient, the courts say, to trace it to the bank vaults, and find a sum equal to it, and, presumably, representing it, continually remaining therein until the bank passes into the hands of the receiver. If that amount of money was not, in fact, in the vaults of the Helena bank between the dates named, it might, perhaps, be set up by way of defense; but it is not material to be considered at this time in determining the sufficiency of the complaint. In our opinion, the facts set forth in the complaint are sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to maintain his action against the receiver of the bank for the amount claimed as a special deposit..
It is further contended, on the part of the plaintiff that when the New York bank sent its telegraphic order to the Helena bank to pay plaintiff the sum of $2,635, and credited the latter bank with the amount as having been paid, the New York bank held collateral securities belonging to the Helena bank out of which it was able to make that credit good; and, the receiver of the Helena bank, having used that credit in the settlement of the balance due the New York bank, and in securing possession of the securities, the plaintiff has become sub-rogated to the rights of the New York bank in such collateral, and is now entitled to pursue those securities, or their proceeds, in the