Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-02-25
COURT DECISIONS.
DlcEsTED BY w. 3. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virsinian-P1lo.l
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
HoDGIN v. PEOPLES N. BANK.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
December 10, 1900.

supreme court or North Carolina.
December 10, 1900.
WHEN A BANK KNOWS THAT A
SURVIVING PARTNER rs MAX
ING DEPOSITS AS SUCH, IT CAN
NOT APPLY THEM TO A DEBT TO
1T CREATED BY THE FIRM BE-
FORE ITS DISSOLUTION.
This was petition for q rehearlng,
wnich was granted. and the court over
ruled It's former decision and held as
shown by the head notes.
The court says:
The question. then. Is, was the judg-
ment OF this court at the former term
erroneous as to the other debt due the
defendant by the firm Of Hodgn Bros.
Dc Lunn? We are OF the opinion that
it was. The learned judge, who tried
the case below, held that the plaintiff
was the legal owner Of this fund, and
that he held it in trust for the payment
OF the debts of the dissolved co-part-
nership of Hodgin Bros. &s Lunn. This
was correct. But he further held that.
when he deposited 1t with the defend
ant, the defendant then had the right
to apply 1t to the payment of the debt
due to 1t by the dissolved co-partner-
snip. unless he placed 1t there as
special deposit" In this instruction
there is error. 1t seems to us that the
difference between a deposit of a special
fund, known to be such by the defend
ant, and a special deposit A special
deposit cannot be checked upon, be-
cause 1t does not belong to the bank
1t remains the property Of the deposit
tor, and must be returned in specie;
that is. the same thing deposited must
be returned to the owner. And, If 1t Is
lost or stolen without the negligence of
the bank, 1t is the depositor's loss. But
this is not so in cases of a general de-
post, or in cases of a general deposit
of special fund.- or of a fund for a
special purpose, where the facts are
known to the bank. In this case the
facts were all known to the defendant
bank at the time these deposits were
made. 1t knew that Lunn was dead.
that the plaintiff was the only surviv-
Ing partner OF the firm, and that he
was making the deposits is the surviv-
Ing partner; and, knowing these facts,
the bank was In law bound to know
that the plaintiff was the owner of these
deposits. and that he held them in trust
for the payment of the debts of the
dissolved co-Dartnership. And know
Ing these facts, 1t had no right to apply
them to the payment of n debt created
by the partnership before its disSolu-
ton. 1t Is thus seen that the plaintiff
was the owner of these deposits, though
he held them I'm trust for the benefit
first. to pay debts of the partnership.
and then for the benefit of the estate,
OF the deceased partner; and It is only
where the depositor stands in the same
relation to the bank as the debtor, md
deposits funds that belong to him and
are held by him in the same right as
the debtor, that the bank has right
to appropriate and apply the deposits
to the payment of debt due to It,
There must be mutually between the
II Nd l,Atrr
debt and the fund deposited If the
fund is trust fund. 1t cannot be APP
nlied by the bank to the payment OF
IN individual debt. Reversed.