ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

instituted in the Probate Court, and, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the State, personal notice must be given to the bank and citation and notice, usual in the Probate Court, published, so as to give the depositor, if living, and his heirs, if dead, opportunity to appear and be heard. Even then the property is not escheated, but deposited with the treasurer to hold as trustee for the owner or his legal representatives, to whom it is payable when they establish their right.

It is true that the rate of interest paid by the State is not the same as that paid by the bank-as to sums under $1,600 it is less, and as to those over $1,600 it is more. But this is a matter with which the plaintiff in error is not concerned and can arise only between the State and the claimant when he asserts a right to property long neglected and apparently abandoned.

But the bank insists that there has been no abandonment; that the money is in safe hands where it was originally left, under by-laws which contemplated that the deposit might remain in the bank without interest on sums over $1,600 until the corporation was dissolved. It contends that to deprive it of the benefit of such deposits is to take property without due process of law.

But while there was a possibility that the money might so remain the bank had no right to require that it should be so left. Neither the charter nor the by-laws create anything in the nature of a tontine, under which, on dissolution of the corporation, the then depositors would receive the money of those absent and unknown. On dissolution the shares of a depositor, who could not be found, would be paid over to his legal representative, who might be an administrator in case his death was estab lished, or a guardian, in case of mental incapacity, or a trustee in bankruptcy in case of insolvency, or a representative appointed under statutes applicable to abandoned property. But it is not necessary to wait for the dissolu

[blocks in formation]

tion of the bank. If the facts warrant it a legal representative can be appointed at any time, with all the rights incident to such appointment, including that of withdrawing the funds and holding them for the true owner when he shall establish his claim.

There is nothing unequal or discriminatory in making the act applicable only to abandoned deposits in a savings bank. The classification is reasonable. Deposits in savings banks are made in expectation that they may remain much longer uncalled for than is usual in deposits in other banks. This fact makes savings deposits all the more likely to be forgotten and abandoned. And as the depositors are often wage-earners, moving from place to place, there is special reason for intervening to protect their interest in this class of property in banks as to which the State's supervisory power is constantly exercised.

The other questions as to payment without the production of the passbook, the rights and relations of the parties arising out of the charter and contract of deposit present no Federal question. The statute does not violate the Constitution of the United States. The judgment is

Affirmed.

INDEX.

ABANDONED PROPERTY.
See STATES, 1;

TRADE-MARKS, 3

ACTIONS.

For tort; liability of agent of State to.

Neither a State nor an individual can confer upon an agent authority to commit a tort so as to excuse the perpetrator; in such a case the law of agency has no application and the individual is liable to suit and injunction. Hopkins v. Clemson College, 636. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 32-37;

COPYRIGHTS, 2;

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 3;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 8, 10.

ACTS OF CONGRESS.

ANTI-TRUST ACT of July 2, 1890, 26 Stat. 209 (see Restraint of Trade): Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 1; United States v. American Tobacco Co., 106. Sections 4, 5 (see Jurisdiction B): Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 1.

BANKRUPTCY.-Act of July 1, 1898, § 2 (see Bankruptcy): Matter of Harris, 274.

COMMERCE.-Act to Regulate Commerce, § 4 (see Constitutional Law,

38): Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Comm., 612. Act of March 4, 1907: Ib.

COPYRIGHTS.-Rev. Stat., § 4965 (see Constitutional Law, 24; Copyrights, 1, 2): American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister, 603. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.-Code, § 130, as amended by act of June 30, 1902, 32 Stat. 526 (see Testamentary Law): Lewis v. Luckett, 554. Code, § 1120 (see Assignments, 2): Merillat v. Hensey, 333. Act of Feb. 10, 1899, 30 Stat. 834, extending Rhode Island Avenue (see Constitutional Law, 11): Briscoe v. District of Columbia, 547. EVIDENCE.-Rev. Stat., § 724 (see Evidence, 1, 2): Carpenter v. Winn, 533.

IMMUNITY OF WITNESSES.-Rev. Stat., § 860 (see Witnesses, 1):
American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister, 603.
INDIANS.-Acts of August 7, 1882, 22 Stat. 341, and February 8,

1887, 24 Stat. 388 (see Indians, 3): Hallowell v. United States,

667

317. Act of January 30, 1897, 29 Stat. 506 (see Indians, 4): Ib. Act of June 30, 1902, 32 Stat. 500 (see Indians, 7): Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 286. Act of April 26, 1906, 34 Stat. 137 (see Indians, 5, 7, 9): Ib. Act of May 27, 1908, § 8, 35 Stat. 312 (see Indians, 6): Ib.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE.-Act of March 4, 1907, 34 Stat. 145 (see Constitutional Law, 1): Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Comm., 612.

JUDICIARY.-Act of 1789, § 14, and Rev. Stat., § 716 (see Writ and Process, 5): American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister, 603. Rev. Stat., § 709 (see Jurisdiction, A 1, 2): Appleby v. Buffalo, 524; Provident Savings Institution v. Malone, 660. Rev. Stat., §§ 997, 1012 (see Appeal and Error, 1): Briscoe v. District of Columbia, 547.

NAVIGABLE WATERS.-Act of July 25, 1866, 14 Stat. 244 (see Navigable Waters, 4): Hannibal Bridge Co. v. United States. 194. Act of March 3, 1899, § 18, 30 Stat. 1153 (see Navigable Waters, 1, 2, 3): Ib.

NATIONAL BANKS.-Act of July 12, 1882, 22 Stat. 162, and § 5151, Rev. Stat. (see National Banks): Apsey v. Kimball, 514.

OKLAHOMA ENABLING ACT of June 16, 1906, 34 Stat. 267 (see Indians, 8): Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 286; (see States, 7): Coyle v. Oklahoma, 559.

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.-Act of July 1, 1902, § 5, 32 Stat. 691 (see Federal Question, 1; Philippine Islands, 5): Dowdell v. United States, 325.

PUBLIC LANDS.-Northern Pacific Land Grant Act of July 2, 1864 (see Public Lands, 5): Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Trodick, 208. Desert Land Act of March 3, 1877, as modified by act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1096 (see Public Lands, 1, 2): United States v. Hammers, 220. Act of May 14, 1880, 21 Stat. 140 (see Public Lands, 8): Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Trodick, 208.

PURE FOOD AND DRUG ACT of June 30, 1906, §§ 7, 8, 34 Stat. 768 (see
Pure Food and Drug Act): United States v. Johnson, 488.
UTAH ENABLING ACT of July 16, 1894, § 8, 28 Stat. 107 (see Public
Lands, 3): Montello Salt Co. v. Utah, 452.

WITNESSES.-Act of July 2, 1864, 13 Stat. 351; Rev. Stat., § 858 (see
Writ and Process, 6): American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister,
603. Rev. Stat., §§ 829, 877 (see Corporations, 3): Wilson v.
United States, 361.

ADMISSION OF STATES.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 30, 31;
STATES, 2, 3.

AGENCY.

See ACTIONS;

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 33, 36.

ALIENATION OF LANDS.
See INDIANS, 5–9;
SPAIN, 1.

ALLOTMENTS.

See INDIANS, 3, 4, 10.

AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION.

Fourth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 24, 25, 38.
Fifth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 19–28.

Sixth. See CORPORATIONS, 3; PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 5.
Eleventh. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 32-37.

Fourteenth. See CONSTITUTIONAL Law.

ANTI-TRUST ACT.

See JURISDICTION, B;

RESTRAINT OF TRADE.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

1. Assignments of error; necessity for and sufficiency of.

Sections 997 and 1012, Rev. Stat., and Rule 35 of this court, require assignments of error and apply to appeals from courts of the District of Columbia. Realty Co. v. Rudolph, 217 U. S. 547. An assignment in the brief is not sufficient. Briscoe v. District of Columbia, 547.

2. Method of review of judgments of Supreme Court of Philippine Islands.

The appropriate method to review judgments of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands in cases from the Court of Land Registration is by writ of error and not by appeal. Jover v. Insular Government, 623.

See CRIMINAL Law, 3;
FEDERAL QUESTION, 1;

JURISDICTION;

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 3, 4;
STATUTES, A 6.

APPROPRIATION OF WATERS.

See RIPARIAN RIGHTS, 2, 3.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »