Court Opinion

ID: 9807393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:02:53.05515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:35:42.290254
License: Public Domain

AlleN, J.,
dissenting from the affirmance of the judgment: The questions presented by the appeal are purely legal, and it obscures rather than aids their correct solution to consider the parties and their needs.
If the plaintiff is a married woman, one of whose husbands committed suicide and the other ran away from her, this may furnish a reason for sympathy, but none for allowing her to recover from the defendant money which it has already paid to her husband, unless the record justifies it; and when the verdict is considered in connection with the charge, which is the proper rule of construction, it seems to me clear that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the findings on issues 3 and 5^/2, and, if so, there must be a new trial.
The verdict is as follows :
“1. When defendant bank paid check drawn by G-. H. Miller, was plaintiff, Minnie Miller, equitable owner of the $800 referred to, as alleged ? Answer: Yes.
“2. Did defendant bank, at time it paid check drawn by Gr. II. Miller for said $800, know that plaintiff, Minnie Miller, claimed to own said fund? Answer: Yes.
“3. Did defendant bank, when it paid check, know or have reason to believe that plaintiff, Minnie Miller, was proceeding to have same attached? Answer: Yes.
“4. Did payment of said check by said bank cause plaintiff to lose said money? (Answer withdrawn by court.)
. “5. Is said bank indebted to plaintiff, Minnie Miller, and, if so, in what amount? Answer: Yes; $800, with interest on same from 21 July, 1916 (by the court).
“5%• Did plaintiff, Minnie Miller, before defendant paid out said money, notify said bank that it was her money, and why it was hers, and request said bank to hold it until she could have it attached? Answer: No.
*169His Honor charged the jury on the third issue as follows:
“Now, gentlemen, it isn’t necessary, in order to fix that bank with her intentions, that either Mr. McMullan or Mrs. Miller should have .said, in exact words, 'I am going to attach the money.’ The meaning of that issue is, Did either of them, by what they said or did, do anything that was reasonably calculated to put Mr. Ross on notice that they were going to start some sort of a proceeding to keep Mr. Miller from getting that money out of the bank? ... If you find from the greater weight of the evidence, if the bank knew or had reason to believe that Mrs. Miller intended to start legal proceedings which would prevent the bank from paying out that money, and knew that, or had reason to believe it at the time they paid that money, and you find that these facts are shown by the greater weight or preponderance of the evidence, you should answer it ‘Yes’; otherwise, ‘No.’ ”
He also charged the jury on issue 5% as follows:
“The plaintiff contends that, taking all of the other circumstances in logical connection, that, starting out with the fact that she came here for that purpose from the town in which she lives; that she had had-a consultation with a lawyer the day before; that he had referred her to a lawyer here; that when she came she went immediately to the lawyer here, to whom she had been referred; that she and her lawyer went to the bank; that after the conversation took place, she left the bank, and that without her seeing Mr. Ross any more, that Mr. Ross phoned Mr. McMullan to the effect that the money had already been drawn out, and •she contends that, putting all of these facts together, that you ought to find that Mr. Ross was told enough in that bank by her to let him know that she claimed the money, and that she wanted him to hold it for her a reasonable time, and not pay it out, so that she could assert her rights, if any, to the fund.”
The jury could not agree, and came into the court for further instructions, when the following colloquy took place:
Juror: “I wanted to know whether we would have to believe that she •directly forbid his paying the money to him, or if from her conversation would lead him to believe.
(Court: “If what she said and did indicated to him or was reasonably .sufficient to indicate to him that she wanted that money kept there until .she could tie it up, that would be the same thing as telling him in plain language.” . . .)
The jury again came into court, when the following proceedings were liad:
Court: “Have you agreed on all of the questions ?”
Juror: “No, sir.”
*170Court: “Have you agreed on any of them ?”
Juror: “No, sir. I think, about tbe first three could be agreed on, but the main important one is the one we can’t agree on.”
The jury came into court a third time, when the following proceedings-were had:
Court: “I want to ask you, gentlemen, how many of the issues have-you agreed on?”
Juror: “We have agreed on the first issue. The last one is the main tangle, though. Mr. Bowen wants you to explain that' last issue.”
Juror Bowen: “I said I could answer it directly if it wasn’t for the-charge you stated to us.”
These two charges embody the same facts and are substantially alike,, and the jury was instructed, under each issue, that it was not necessary for the plaintiff tó use any particular words, but that if her language was. such as reasonably to lead the bank to believe that she wanted the money held until she could take out legal proceedings, the issues should be-answered “Yes”; and still the third issue was answered “Yes,” and issue-5l/2 “No.”
In other words, when the record is read as a whole .and the verdict is construed with the charge, the jury has found in answer to issue 3 that the conduct of the plaintiff was such as reasonably to lead the defendant to believe that she wanted the money held until she could begin legal proceedings, and, in answer to .issue 5^/2, that her conduct would not lead to-this result.
The explanation of this conflict is, that the issues are not identical and the jury was confused by the charge, as is shown by the fact that they asked for further instructions three times on issue 5%, and that ten of' the jury signed a paper stating that they thought their verdict was in favor of the defendant.
The evidence of the plaintiff’s title to the money is also unsatisfactory,, and, upon the whole record, I think justice demands a new trial.
Note. — -While Justices Walkee and Allen hold to the view that no opinions should have been filed in this case because the Court was evenly divided as to-what the decision should be, they dissented from the affirmance of the judgment and deemed it proper to express their reasons therefor, as opinions were filed to sustain the opposite view of the case.