Maryland case law › Carman v. President of the Franklin Bank

Carman v. President of the Franklin Bank

61 Md. 467 (1884) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: AffirmedRobinson, J.✓ Good law
HoldingThe appellants were appointed by the Act of 1880, chapter 443, as a board of examiners of Edmondson avenue and were authorized to make and collect assessments on property located on that avenue.

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. We did not hear the counsel for the appellee in this case, because there ought not, it seemed to us, to be any difficulty in regard to the question presented in this appeal. The appellants were appointed by the Act of 1880, chapter 443, a board of examiners of Edmondson avenue, and. were authorized to make and collect assessments on the property located on said avenue. The Act further provided that the money thus collected should be deposited by them in some bank in Baltimore City.

As such examiners the appellants collected $11,483.11, which was deposited by them with the appellee corporation, in their names as “Examiners of Edmondson avenue By the Act of 1882, chapter HI, a new board of examiners were appointed in the place of the appellants, and by the express terms of the Act their duties and powers as examiners ceased. This suit is brought by the appellants to recover $8,710.67, balance of the money thus deposited by them, and which was paid by the appellee to the new board. The deposit of money in bank, by one in his own name and in his own right, creates, no doubt, the relation of debtor and creditor — the contract on the part of the bank being to pay the checks of the depositor, so long as it has funds in hand sufficient to do so. In this case, however, the money was not deposited by the appellants in their own names, nor in their own right, but as examiners 470 of Edmondson avenue.

It was a deposit made in their official relation as required by the Act, under which the money had been collected, and to the credit of a designated fund, in which they had no beneficial interest. When they were superseded in office, by the appointment of the new board under the Act of 1882, the money did

This is a preview of Carman v. President of the Franklin Bank. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.