Miller v. First Nat'l Bank of South Bend

1 N.E.2d 671, 103 Ind. App. 99, 1936 Ind. App. LEXIS 176
CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 11, 1936
DocketNo. 15,063.
StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.E.2d 671 (Miller v. First Nat'l Bank of South Bend) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Miller v. First Nat'l Bank of South Bend, 1 N.E.2d 671, 103 Ind. App. 99, 1936 Ind. App. LEXIS 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 1936).

Opinion

Wiecking, J.

This is an .action in which the appellant sued the First National Bank of South Bend and the First Bank and Trust Company of South Bend to recover an amount alleged to be due appellant on account of a savings deposit. The appellants complaint, denominated the second amended complaint, was in three paragraphs. The First Bank and Trust Company filed a demurrer to the second and third paragraphs of complaint, which demurrers were sustained by the *101 court. The appellant refused to plead further on these two paragraphs of complaint and the court thereupon entered judgment that the appellant take nothing by his second and third paragraphs of complaint and in favor of the appellees for costs. The First Bank and Trust Company also filed an answer in general denial to the first paragraph of complaint. The other appellee, First National Bank, filed an answer in general denial to all three paragraphs of complaint.

The cause was submitted for trial before the court, who found for the appellant and against the appellee First National Bank in the sum of $2,018.49 and for the appellee First Bank and Trust Company. The appellant filed a motion for new trial which was overruled by the court and then prayed an appeal to this court assigning as error here: (1) the error of the court in sustaining the appellee First Bank and Trust Company’s demurrer to paragraph II of the appellant’s second amended complaint; (2) the error of the court in sustaining the demurrer of appellee First Bank and Trust Company to paragraph III of appellant’s second amended complaint; and (3) the error of the court in overruling appellant’s motion for new trial on the grounds: (a) that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence; and (b) the decision of the court is contrary to law.

The primary question involved here is the action of the court in sustaining the demurrer of the appellee First Bank & Trust Company to the second and third paragraphs of appellant’s second amended complaint. The theory of each paragraph of complaint challenged is the same except that the third paragraph pleads some facts in more detail. Each incorporates by reference a certain Exhibit “A” which is a part of the complaint. The essential parts of the third paragraph of the second *102 amended complaint necessary for a consideration of this question are as follows:

“That on the 16th day of November, 1915, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant First National Bank of South Bend was a corporation owning, controlling and operating a National Bank in the city of South Bend, Indiana,, under and .by virtue of the laws of the United States.
“That on the 4th day of June, 1931, and for a long time prior thereto the defendant First Bank & Trust Company of South Bend was and now is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Indiana, for the purpose of carrying on a general banking business, and that it has been, and now is, engaged in carrying on such business with its office in the City of South Bend, Indiana.
“That on or about the 16th day of November, 1915, plaintiff deposited in the savings department of said National Bank the sum of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars. That by the rules and regulations published in the pass book issued to plaintiff at the time said deposit was made, which rules were at that time in full force and effect, and which have continued to be in full force and effect ever since, said defendant National Bank agreed that interest should accrue at the rate of four per cent (4%) per annum on all sums of money which remained on deposit for six months or more, and that interest should be paid from each January 1st, April 1st, July 1st, and October 1st. That according to said rule plaintiff’s deposit began to draw interest on January 1, 1916. That it was the custom of banks generally, and of the defendant National Bank in particular, at the end of each interest period to credit to the account of each savings depositor, the interest earned during the last six month period, and if the interest was not withdrawn, to pay interest on the accumulated interest. That by reason of said rule there accrued to plaintiff’s account the sum of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars interest on July 1, 1931. That plaintiff has never withdrawn any part of said principal or accrued interest, making a total amount now due to plaintiff from said defendant National Bank of Two Thou *103 sand ($2,000:00) Dollars, which said sum is wholly unpaid.
“That on or about the 1st day of July, 1931, plaintiff presented his pass book to said defendant National Bank and requested and demanded that he be paid the full amount due to him as such depositor, including both principal and interest, and that said defendant National Bank refused, and still refuses, to pay plaintiff said amount or any part thereof.
“That on or about the 5th day of June, 1931, said defendant National Bank, being largely indebted to plaintiff as aforesaid, entered into a written agreement with the Indiana Trust Company of South Bend, a copy of which agreement is filed herewith, marked ‘Exhibit A,’ and made a part of this complaint. That since said time said Indiana Trust Company duly changed its name to the First Bank & Trust Company of South Bend; and that said Indiana Trust Company is one and the same corporation as the defendant First Bank & Trust Company. .
- “That pursuant to said agreement, and in accordance with the terms thereof, said National Bank sold, assigned, transferred, turned over and delivered to said defendant Trust Company, its entire corporate assets with the intention of ceasing the exercise of its corporate franchise, and on said date abandoned its aforesaid business and the purpose of its corporation, and has ever since failed to resume the same. That in consideration therefor said defendant Trust Company assumed and agreed to pay all of the liabilities of said defendant National Bank as shown by the general ledger of said National Bank as of the close of business on June 4, 1931. •
“That the liability of said National Bank to plaintiff as aforesaid was not included in the liabilities of said National Bank as shown by its general ledger as of the close of business on June 4, 1931.
“That said assets were turned over, delivered to' and absorbed by said defendant Trust Company in direct violation of the rights of the various creditors of said National Bank, including this plaintiff. That at the time of the transfer-of said assets, said defendant Trust Company well knew or should have known, of the existence of other outstanding claims against and liabilities of said National Bank, includ *104 ing the claim of this plaintiff, not shown by the general ledger of said National Bank as of the close of business on June 4,1931; and that no provision was made in said agreement, and was not made before and has not since been made, for the payment of such other outstanding claims and liabilities, including the claim of this plaintiff.

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

Related

McDonald v. Chemical National Bank
174 U.S. 610 (Supreme Court, 1899)
Travis, Rec. v. Porter
158 N.E. 234 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1927)
Johnson v. Ford Motor Co.
215 N.W. 310 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1927)
Baird v. First National Bank
215 N.W. 810 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1927)
Riegel v. Planters State Bank
1924 OK 303 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Nappanee Canning Co. v. Reid, Murdoch & Co.
64 N.E. 870 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1902)
Chicago, Indiana & Southern Railroad v. Taylor
108 N.E. 1 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1915)
Okmulgee Window Glass Co. v. Frink
260 F. 159 (Eighth Circuit, 1918)
Hayden v. Chemical Nat. Bank of New York
84 F. 874 (Second Circuit, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 N.E.2d 671, 103 Ind. App. 99, 1936 Ind. App. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-first-natl-bank-of-south-bend-indctapp-1936.