Sherman v. New Bedford Five Cents Savings Bank
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for money had and received, being the amount of a deposit in the defendant bank, made by Urial Sherman, the plaintiff’s testator. The First Central Congregational Society of Rochester intervened as a claimant of the fund, under the Pub. Sts. o. 116, § 31. Trial in the Superior Court, before Gardner, J., who directed the jury to return a verdict for the claimant; and reported the case for the determination of this court. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtW. Allen, J.
By the intervening of the claimant under the Pub. Sts. c. 116, § 31, the action becomes a proceeding between the plaintiff and the claimant to determine to which of them the fund belongs.
The money deposited belonged to the plaintiff’s testator, and the fund continued to be his, unless he made a gift of it to the claimant when it was deposited. To constitute a gift, there must have been a transfer of the fund to the claimant, or at least a transfer of it to the depositor as trustee for the claimant. Sweeney v. Boston Five Cents Savings Bank, 116 Mass. 384, was an instance of the former, where…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Gerrish v. New Bedford Institution for SavingsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Brabrook v. Boston Five Cents Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Cummings v. BramhallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Clark v. ClarkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Eastman v. Woronoco Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Battles v. Millbury Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
- Eschen v. SteersCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1926
- Alger v. North End Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- O'Hara v. O'HaraMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Sayre v. WeilSupreme Court of Alabama · 1891
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.