Majority
Headnote
1. Banks and Banking (§ .152*)—Certificate of Deposit—Husband and Wife—Survivorship.The defendant is a duly organized and incorporated national bank located at North Tonawanda, and on the 29th of $6,900, issued its copy: day of July, on the deposit with it of the sum certificate.of deposit, of which the following is a
$6900.00 The State National Bank, North Tonawanda, N. Y.
“Jul. 29, 1910.
Alfred and Anna Martz has deposited in this bank no/100 Dollars, payable to the order of themselves sixty-nine hundred and n current funds on the return of this certificate properly indorsed. In case this amount shall remain on deposit for a period of 6. months, interest on the £ ame shall be allowed at the rate of 4 per cent, per annum, but no more than six months’ interest shall in any event be paid on this certificate.
“Int. from July 5, 1910.
“Not over Seven Thousand 7000 #
“No. 13465. H. W. Glarke, Cashier.”
Plaintiff’s action is upon this certificate, and alleged in her complaint are that prior to the isst.: she had deposited with the defendant the sum she was then the owner, to the credit of plaintiff said Alfred Martz, in the name of Alfred and urther material facts ing of said certificate of $7,800, of which and her husband the Anna Martz, for the
Defendant demurred to the complaint upon the grounds that there is a defect of parties plaintiff, in that the personal representative of Alfred Martz is not joined as such party; that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and that the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue, in that the certificate of deposit set forth in the complaint is made payable to the plaintiff and another person, and plaintiff cannot alone sue thereon.
[1] We are of the opinion that the court improperly sustained the demurrer. On the facts stated in the complaint, plaintiff, as surviv- or of the two payees named therein, became, on the death of her husband, the other payee, the owner of the certificate of deposit, and the estate of her deceased husband had no interest therein, nor in the moneys which the certificate represented. West v. McCullough, 123 App. Div. 846 , 108 N. Y. Supp. 493 , affirmed 194 N. Y. 518 , 87 N. E. 1130 . This seems to be conceded by defendant; but it is insisted in its behalf that, as stated in the certificate, it has agreed to pay the sum represented thereby only “on the return of this certificate properly indorsed,” and the statute (Negotiable Instruments Law [Consol. Laws 1909, c. 38] § 71) prescribing, as did the common law before it, that “where an instrument is payable to the order of two or more payees or indorsees who are not partners, all must indorse, unless the one indorsing has authority to indorse for the' others,” the indorsement of the personal representative of the deceased payee is necessary to comply with the specified condition upon which the bank agreed to pay the certificate.
[2, 3] But a negotiable instrument may be transferred without^ indorsement, and the transferee become its owner, and maintain an action thereon in his own name; it being, however, in such case, subject to all the equities and defenses'which the debtor had, at the-time of the transfer, against the claim in the hands of the previous holder. Goshen National Bank v. Bingham, 118 N. Y. 349 , 23 N. E. 180 , 7 L. R. A. 595 , 16 Am. St. Rep. 765 . See, also, Negotiable Instruments Law, § 79. [4] That a certificate of deposit, payable as this was, to the order of the depositor on the return of the certificate properly indorsed, may b.e transferred by the payee without his indorsement,
[5] Plaintiff owns the certificate as survivor; and her rights therein and title thereto are in no way dependent. upon any transfer or indorsement of the certificate by her copayee ¡ or his representative. If she, as survivor, had for value transferrer, this certificate to A. without her indorsement, it could scarcely be cc ntended that A. would not have become its owner; and, if the owner, then certainly the case last cited is authority that he could maintain a¡n action on it, though not indorsed by either payee. But, if an action could, under the circumstances supposed, be maintained by her transferee without the indorsement of either of the original payees, tijen certainly she could maintain any action on the certificate, which by her assignment she has the right to transfer to another.
Interlocutory judgment reversed, with costs, and demurrer overruled,- with costs, with leave to defendant to answer within 20 days, upon payment of costs in this court and in the court below. All concur.
Cases cited
- Scott v. Spencer 194 N. Y. 518 p. 1047
- Goshen National Bank v. Bingham 118 N. Y. 349 p. 1047