DocketNumber: Appeal 302
Citation Numbers: 176 A. 52, 115 Pa. Super. 454, 1934 Pa. Super. LEXIS 464
Judges: Tkexler, Keller, Cunningham, Baldeige, Stadtfeld, Parker, James
Filed Date: 10/10/1934
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
The opinion of the court in this case goes beyond the recent decisions of the Supreme Court (Cameron v. Carnegie Trust Co.,
In Cameron v. Carnegie Trust Co., supra, the Ottumwa National Bank sent to the Carnegie Trust Company a note for collection and remittance only. The Carnegie Trust Company collected the note, received the money, and drew a draft on the Colonial Trust Company — where it had sufficient funds on deposit — and sent it to the Ottumwa National Bank. The Carnegie Trust Company failed before the draft was presented to the Colonial Trust Company. The Supreme Court held that the Ottumwa Bank was entitled to be paid in preference to the depositors of the trust company the money which the latter had received as agent for thebank, and for which it had given its draft, drawn on another banking institution. By giving its draft on the Colonial Trust Company, for the money which it had received as agent for the bank *Page 465 and mingled with its other funds, it designated an ``account', which came into the hands of the receiver, separate from its general assets, out of which the trust fund was to be paid.
In Mehler's Appeal, supra, the treasurer of the Dollar Title and Trust Company of Sharon caused the stock of the Mehlers, which had been pledged as collateral security for a loan, to be sold for the account of the Trust Company and the proceeds of the stock were deposited in the Mellon National Bank to the credit of the trust company. The treasurer then embezzled out of the general funds of the trust company the equivalent of the stock so sold. On the insolvency of the trust company the Mehlers were held to be entitled to be paid the proceeds of the sale of their stock which had been fraudulently sold by the treasurer and deposited to the credit of the trust company in the Mellon National Bank, or so much thereof as was represented by the"lowest balance" to the credit of the trust company in the Mellon Bank "after the proceeds of the conversion had been deposited therein." There, again, we have a specific fund or account, separate and distinct from the general assets of the insolvent trust company, into which the trust fund was traced.
That is not the situation here. Abbie P. Alexander had two accounts in the Manayunk Trust Company — one a savings account, the other a checking account. They represented no specific items of property, but, by statute, created her a preferred creditor as against the money, checks in course of collection, notes, loans and discounts, bonds, mortgages, real estate and other property constituting the general assets of the trust company. She bought a mortgage from the appellant, Elizabeth T. Reicheldifer for $1,524.50, giving the latter's agent, the Manayunk Trust Company, a transfer of $1,000 from the savings account and a check for *Page 466
$524.50 on her checking account in said trust company. The trust company charged Mrs. Alexander's savings account with $1,000 and her checking account with $524.50 and credited an account which it carried on its own books as "Miscellaneous Account" with $1,524.50, drew on a check on itself against that account for $1,524.50 and sent it by mail to Mrs. Reicheldifer. She presented it to the trust company for payment, but in the meantime the Secretary of Banking had taken charge of its affairs and the check was not paid. No money, checks, securities or property of any kind were segregated and kept apart in the ``Miscellaneous Account" from the general assets of the trust company, consisting of cash, checks in course of collection, notes, loans and discounts, bonds, mortgages, real estate and other property of the trust company. It was only a bookkeeping transaction on the books of the trust company — a "mere book entry" as referred to by Mr. Justice MITCHELL in Iron City Nat. Bank v. Fort Pitt Nat. Bank,
It is unfortunate that at the time this transaction occurred the law did not put the appellant on an equality with the depositors. That has been rectified by the Department of Banking Code of 1933, sec. 1011, 3d par. (Act of May 15, 1933, P.L. 565, 614); but under the law then existing she had no priority over general creditors, — and certainly none over depositors — because the transfers from the savings and checking accounts of Mrs. Alexander to the ``miscellaneous ac-count' were merely book entries, and passed to the latter no specific money or property which was separate or distinct from the other assets of the trust company, but only an interest in property, which was *Page 469 ``mixed with a general mass or fund of the same description,' and was incapable of identification. It will not do to speculate what would have been the result if Mrs. Alexander had drawn out $1,524.50 in cash and paid it to the trust company. She did not do it, and we must treat the facts as they are.
Judge LAMBERTON, of the court below, in what I think is a very clear and convincing opinion, has discussed a number of other decisions, which it is not necessary for me to refer to. I think they justify the action of the court below and admit of no other ruling, if the decisions of our Supreme Court are to be followed.
I would affirm the decree.
Mehler's Appeal , 310 Pa. 25 ( 1932 )
Pittsburgh's Appeal , 316 Pa. 125 ( 1934 )
Iron City Nat. Bank v. Fort Pitt Nat. Bank , 159 Pa. 46 ( 1893 )
Lebanon Trust & Safe Deposit Bank's Assigned Estate , 166 Pa. 622 ( 1895 )
Union National Bank v. Franklin National Bank , 249 Pa. 375 ( 1915 )
Commonwealth v. Tradesmen's Trust Co. , 250 Pa. 372 ( 1915 )
Commonwealth v. Union Surety & Guaranty Co. , 37 Pa. Super. 179 ( 1908 )
Groff v. City Savings Fund & Trust Co. , 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 288 ( 1911 )
Lifter v. Earle Co. , 1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 275 ( 1919 )
Freiberg v. Stoddard , 161 Pa. 259 ( 1894 )
Thompson's Appeal , 22 Pa. 16 ( 1853 )