Court Opinion

ID: 6120796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-04 18:44:13.721683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:23:13.643546
License: Public Domain

Lkaened, P. J.:
In the strict meaning of the word, borrowed from the civil law, deposit is the delivery of a thing for custody, to be redelivered on demand, without compensation. Such are deposits of securities or valuables, in a bank, for safe keeping. But ordinary money deposits in banks are clearly different, in this respect: the identical money deposited is not tobe returned — only its equivalent; and the money deposited becomes the money of the bank. The bank really becomes debtor to the depositor. Still, however, the bank is, in theory, supposed to have the money on hand, ready to deliver when called for; and hence it is that, as in the case of a true deposit, an actual demand must be made before the bank can be required to pay. This is the plain and undoubted understanding of all parties. The depositor puts his money in the bank for better secui’ity, instead of keeping it himself. And when he actually demands it the bank is to pay; not before. The bank may also give a certificate of deposit. When they do this, and when, as in this case, they make the certificate payable on- its return, properly indorsed, they have then added to their original undertaking as a depositary, an agreement that they will pay the deposit to the holder of that certificate, properly indorsed. They are, therefore, under a liability as depositary, to be ready to redeliver the money whenever demanded; and further, to deliver it to any holder of that certificate, properly indorsed. It follows, therefore, that they are liable to a bona fide holder of the certificate, notwithstanding a payment to the original depositor. It was urged by the defendants that the certificate was payable forthwith; that after the lapse of an unreasonable time (in this case seven years), it was presumed to be dishonored, and therefore, that the assignee took it subject to all equities. We think not. The very.nature of the instrument and the ordinary modes of business, show that a certificate of deposit, like a deposit credited in a pass-book, is intended to represent moneys actually left with the bank for safe keeping, which are to be retained until the depositor actually demands them. Such a certificate is not dishonored until presented. Our statutes recognize depositors as a distinct class from other creditors, and sometimes give them special privileges; and this is because, *608although in fact the bank is a debtor, yet it is supposed to be more, and to be a depositary, liable to redeliver, at any time, on demand.
We think, therefore, that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Present — Leabned, P. J., Boabdman and Bocines, JJ.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.