J.G. Kuehnle Co. v. Fulton, Supt.

187 N.E. 81, 45 Ohio App. 386, 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 578, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 249
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 19, 1932
DocketNo 2733
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 N.E. 81 (J.G. Kuehnle Co. v. Fulton, Supt.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
J.G. Kuehnle Co. v. Fulton, Supt., 187 N.E. 81, 45 Ohio App. 386, 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 578, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 249 (Ohio Ct. App. 1932).

Opinion

*579 LLOYD, J.

The question then for consideration and determination is whether the $12,000 so deposited with the trust department of The Security-Home Trust Company should be allowed by the defendant as a preferred claim. If so, the motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted; otherwise, overruled.

The facts show that the funds deposited remained on deposit in the bank for a period much longer than sixty days before defendant assumed charge thereof for liquidation, and that having so continued on deposit the trust company, by the very terms of the stipulation under which the deposit was made, was expressly given the right to use it as any other moneys generally deposited in the bank might be used and for the privilege thus expressly given the moneys so on deposit bore “interest at the rate of 47o per annum, payable semiannually.” As said in McDonald, Admr. v Fulton, 125 Oh St, 507:

“It is to be observed that deposit in an interest-bearing account is directed, which of course contemplates use of the fund by the bank.”

This statement of the Supreme Court relates to a statutory direction, but it is none-the-less applicable to a contractual direction whereby the parties themselves determine the character of the deposit and convert what otherwise would have been a trust relation into that of debtor and creditor.

Our conclusion, therefore, is that the motion of plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings should be and is overruled.

RICHARDS and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Branciforti v. Ninety-Eighth, Realty Co.
31 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 397 (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 N.E. 81, 45 Ohio App. 386, 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 578, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jg-kuehnle-co-v-fulton-supt-ohioctapp-1932.