Medford Trust Co. v. McKnight

184 N.E. 681, 282 Mass. 140, 1933 Mass. LEXIS 880
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 20, 1933
StatusPublished

This text of 184 N.E. 681 (Medford Trust Co. v. McKnight) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Medford Trust Co. v. McKnight, 184 N.E. 681, 282 Mass. 140, 1933 Mass. LEXIS 880 (Mass. 1933).

Opinion

Crosby, J.

The first case is a suit in equity by which the plaintiff seeks to recover a certain deposit in The First National Bank of Boston standing in the name of John E. Eaton and Edwin T. McKnight, copartners doing business under the firm name of Eaton and McKnight. William Shaw McCallum on March 4, 1932, filed a petition praying that he be admitted as a party, claiming the deposit by virtue of a written assignment thereof. This petition was [142]*142allowed. The second case is an action of contract brought by the commissioner of banks against said John E. Eaton and Edwin T. McKnight, in which the Codman Cooperative Bank is summoned as trustee, and the above named McCallum, who claims that a certain deposit therein standing in the name of the principal defendants is his property, has been admitted as a party.

1. The first case was heard by a single justice of this court. There was evidence tending to show that the claimant and one William P. Kelley acted as attorneys for Eaton and McKnight in connection with certain proceedings brought against them, and, in payment for services rendered and to be rendered, Eaton and McKnight on December 16, 1931, delivered to the claimant a written assignment from themselves as individuals and as copartners of “all and whatever sum or sums of money now due and becoming due to us or either or all of us as individuals and/or partners as aforesaid from The First National Bank of Boston and/or from Cod-man Cooperative Bank and all our right, title and interest in and to twenty (20) Shares of said Cooperative Bank with the right to surrender said Shares and receive either in our name or names or your own payment or redemption therefor.” This assignment was dated December 15, 1931. It is the contention of the claimant that he is entitled by virtue of the assignment to certain savings accounts in The First National Bank of Boston standing in the name of Eaton and McKnight in the sum of $6,003.53. It appeared that the pass books issued by the bank containing the record of these deposits could not be found by the assignors and have not been delivered to the claimant. There was evidence that two or three days after the assignment was received by the claimant he went to the bank and showed it to one of the tellers and requested her to make a note of it. On March 1, 1932, notice in writing of the assignment was given to the bank. The plaintiff Medford Trust Company filed a bill in equity inserted in a writ against Eaton and McKnight and others on December 26,1931, making an attachment on December 30, 1931, of the credits in The First National Bank of Boston belonging to Eaton and McKnight individually or as co-[143]*143partners. The bank filed an answer reciting that it held an account in the name of Eaton and McKnight in the sum of $6,003.53, and further answered that on March 1, 1932, notice in writing was given to it of the assignment. The claimant on March 4, 1932, filed a petition reciting the facts and praying that he might be admitted as a party to the suit, and that he be entitled to these deposits amounting to $6,003.53. At the hearing before the single justice certain rules of the savings department of the bank were admitted in evidence which so far as material read as follows: “This book must be presented whenever a deposit is made or money withdrawn. Should the depositor desire any other person to withdraw money, this book must be sent to the Bank together with an order on a separate paper in the form prescribed in the back of this book. ... No assignment or transfer of this book will be recognized unless recorded on the books of £he Bank, and no responsibility for the validity of any assignment is assumed by the Bank. The Bank will not be responsible for any payments made on this book in case it is lost or stolen, unless written notice of such loss or theft has previously been received by the Bank. In all cases, except as above, payment upon presentation of the pass book shall be a discharge to the Bank for the amount so paid.” After hearing, a decree was entered reciting that the funds in the bank belonged to the claimant by virtue of the assignment and that the same be paid to him, from which decree the plaintiff Medford Trust Company appealed.

2. In the second case it appears that the sum of $502.32, represented by certain shares in the Codman Cooperative Bank, at the time of the service of the trustee writ on the bank stood in the name of the principal defendants; that the claimant held the assignment in writing hereinbefore referred to dated December 15, 1931. The pass book issued by the bank was not delivered to the claimant at the time of the assignment, but afterwards, and before service of the trustee writ, the claimant presented the assignment to the bank and the bank refused to transfer to the claimant the shares in its possession because the assignment was not accompanied by the pass book which at that time [144]*144could not be found. Some days after the trustee writ was served the claimant presented the assignment to the bank, together with the pass book, but payment was refused by the bank because the trustee writ had previously been served upon it. Evidence was admitted of a by-law of the bank which read: “Article X. Transfer Fees. One or more shares, held in the name of one person in any one series of stock, may be transferred subject to the approval of the Treasurer or Board of Directors, to another person upon payment of a fee of twenty-five cents for each transfer.” There was also a ruling of the board of directors as stated in the pass book which read as follows: “In making payments or filing notice to withdraw, the pass-book must be presented.” No fee was tendered or paid to the bank by the claimant. The trial judge ruled that the claimant was entitled to the amount standing in the name of the defendants.

The first question to be decided is whether the assignment of the savings account in The First National Bank of Boston and the account in the Codman Cooperative Bank vested the title in these deposits in the claimant as against the attachments of these deposits, without the delivery by the assignor of the pass books containing statements of the accounts, it being shown that the pass books have been lost. The pass book issued by The First National Bank of Boston had not been found before the hearing was held in the first case. The pass book in the Codman Cooperative Bank was found after the trustee process had been served and it was presented by the claimant, together with the assignment, to the bank.

National banking associations are authorized to receive savings deposits under U. S. Rev. Sts. § 5136, as amended by 42 U. S. Sts. at Large, 767, c. 257, § 1, and 44 U. S. Sts. at Large, 1226, c. 191, § 2; and 44 U. S. Sts. at Large, 1232, c. 191, § 16. The Federal statutes make no provision respecting pass books on savings accounts. A savings deposit in a national bank may be assigned by the depositor, except so far as provisions of the by-laws of the bank may regulate or limit the assignment. It follows that [145]*145the Federal statutes constitute no bar to the validity of the assignment of the deposits in The First National Bank of Boston as between the assignors and the claimant.

G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 170 relating to cooperative banks provides in § 6 that “The shareholders of every such corporation shall make and adopt the necessary by-laws consistent with law for the government of its affairs . . . The by-laws shall provide for and determine ...

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

Related

Kingman v. Perkins
105 Mass. 111 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1870)
Kimball v. Leland
110 Mass. 325 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1872)
Thayer v. Daniels
113 Mass. 129 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1873)
Taft v. Bowker
132 Mass. 277 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1882)
Commonwealth v. Scituate Savings Bank
137 Mass. 301 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)
James v. City of Newton
8 N.E. 122 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1886)
Cosmopolitan Trust Co. v. Leonard Watch Co.
143 N.E. 827 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
184 N.E. 681, 282 Mass. 140, 1933 Mass. LEXIS 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medford-trust-co-v-mcknight-mass-1933.