The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-02-22
NOT A TRUST FUND.


Il reversing the judgment OF the supe-
70. court In the case Of w. w. Dearborn
n a. vs. the " Arlington Savings Rank
sse ssprems court holds that money held
81 The bank TO the credit OF T. +. Watson
vxp a general dercsit and that IL did not
eaas snto the hsnds Of G. n. sheafe, fe-
essssr a. trust fund. When Watson
made the deposit he waa given a duplicate
eseo~lt slip. on which was written '.s<csl-
rsFy fcr signing bond 10 be held by bank"
sad from this Endorsement II wss contend
q thai the deposit was not To be treated
a. an ordinary general deposit. The su-
prsnse court holds otherwise. saying In
part:
TO our mind thez@ words should be given
rfiie or no force IN determining whether
b. the deposit the bank became the debtor
Or ths trustee of the depositor. The only
thing the words Indicated was that. what
ever the relation between the depositors
ard the bank on account OF the deposit,
sach relation had been assumed for the
purpose Of securing surety upon n boud,
ard should be continued until the surety
shosld ne released from liability
After advertfnw 20 the rule that public
policy wssl not allow upon any but salts
factory proof one depo~ltor TO secure a
rrsserence over another by reason Of the
Alleged fact that his money had been
the testimony In the case will not warrant
shs finding OF the trial court. Subsequent
"a making the deposit. Watson. desiring
10 change the security 80 that 800 Guild
b available for one purpose and $50 for
another. drew a check payable 70 eertif-
Gates OF deposit. such az would be neces-
sary 10 draw out funds on general deposit
With the bank. The check was presented
eaf marked paid. and a certificate OF de-
&C., .fsn L. a.. -. - - l.
surety and another for 500 To secure an
esher SET OF hondsnen. Afterwari the 500
certificate was surrendered by The surety
IN me irst bond and upon Endorsement vas
paid hy the bank. leaving the 500. all that
r. Involved IN the action. The court con-
eindes:
'sAH Of these papers were such as would
have been required in the transaction OF
the business II the deposit was a general
ere AMI more OF them would have heen
required had me deposit been a special
one: ard II they have their legal effect
they conelgslvSiy establish the fact that
IRE deposit was general. and not special
The only way in which their force is
sought 10 Be met is by the general state
meet By said respondent twatsonl. that
hs Oh not understand their force and
enrct when he received or signed and de-
Nvered them: that all ne supposed he was
doing was In one instance getting n receipt
for his money and In the other giving his
cvn receipt therefor But In the absence
II any proof OF fraud on the part OF the
hank In inducing him to receive or exc
cote ana deliver the papers. or OF any tes-
emony tending to prove that their con-
tents or effect was I'm any manner MS
represented 70 him by any person. their
force and effsct were not overcome by Snch
proof. In oar opinion. clear preponder-
~ x.r1e n sssF4e APf ~ hn
elaim that the deposit was n general one.
That being 50. tho money ala not came 20
the hands Of the receiver as a trust fund
The opinion T. by Chief Justice Hoyt.
And IL eoncurred In by Justices Scott and
Dunbar Justice Gordon dissents.