Smith v. Equitable Co-operative Bank

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Smith v. Equitable Co-operative Bank

106 N.E. 1020, 219 Mass. 382, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1553

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 25, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 106 N.E. 1020 (Smith v. Equitable Co-operative Bank) 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

Smith v. Equitable Co-operative Bank, 106 N.E. 1020, 219 Mass. 382, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1553 (Mass. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Hammond, J.

The judge before whom without a jury the case was tried found that in making the payments in question the plaintiff acted, not as the agent of her mother’s estate, but for herself alone; that the payments were made from her own money; that they were not beneficial to her, and that they were not made by way of a loan to her mother’s estate. All of these findings were warranted by the evidence. The plaintiff, being a minor at the time the payments were made, had the right to rescind the transactions even without putting the defendant in statu quo. Simpson v. Prudential Ins Co. 184 Mass. 348, and cases cited. It follows that the first ten rulings requested were properly refused.

It is urged by the defendant that the practical effect of a decision that an institution like the defendant, having thousands of depositors, “takes payments from the hands of a minor at its peril,” would be serious. The obvious answer to this is that if the defendant cannot safely do business under the general rules of law, it should close its business, and not that the law should be changed to meet its methods. The eleventh ruling requested was rightly refused.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Hammond, J.

The judge before whom without a jury the case was tried found that in making the payments in question the plaintiff acted, not as the agent of her mother’s estate, but for herself alone; that the payments were made from her own money; that they were not beneficial to her, and that they were not made by way of a loan to her mother’s estate. All of these findings were warranted by the evidence. The plaintiff, being a minor at the time the payments were made, had the right to rescind the transactions even without putting the defendant in statu quo. Simpson v. Prudential Ins Co. 184 Mass. 348, and cases cited. It follows that the first ten rulings requested were properly refused.

It is urged by the defendant that the practical effect of a decision that an institution like the defendant, having thousands of depositors, “takes payments from the hands of a minor at its peril,” would be serious. The obvious answer to this is that if the defendant cannot safely do business under the general rules of law, it should close its business, and not that the law should be changed to meet its methods. The eleventh ruling requested was rightly refused.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 N.E. 1020, 219 Mass. 382, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-equitable-co-operative-bank-mass-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack