Fidelity Savings Bank v. Vandiver

Stockbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case aris.es from a second application for a writ of mandamus to require the State Treasurer to surrender to three Savings Banks located in Allegany County, Maryland, certain bonds, severally deposited by them with the State Treasurer, in compliance with the provisions of three several Acts of Assembly amending the charters of the respective banks. The first application and the opinion of the Court in that case are reported in 120 Maryland, 619 , and the facts with sl single exception will be found fully stated in the opinion in the former case. The additional fact which has transpired since the first decision was rendered, was the passage by the General Assembly of 1914, of an Act designated as Chapter 181.

By that, after the recital of the antecedent legislation, it was provided in section 2 as follows: “Be it further enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, That the Treasurer of Maryland he, and he is hereby authorized and empowered and directed forthwith to surrender to each of the said savings hanks such bonds or securities as may have been deposited with him by each of said banks, by virtue of the provision of Chapter 109 of the Acts of the General Assembly of .1892, and any amendments thereto, and that this Act shall be construed retrospectively as well as prospectively.” The provisions of the statute under which the deposits were made required them to be registered in the name of the State Treasurer, officially, and held as a trust under and pursuant to the Act, “and the same shall be held by said ³⁵⁵ Treasurer in trust as security for the depositors.” The effect of this legislation was to constitute a designated State official as a trustee for certain specific purposes; the trust was one created by an Act of the General Assembly, and since an Act of the Legislature is always subject to repeal by a succeeding Legislature, the trust must be construed as analagous in many respects to a trust created by an individual with a reserved power in the person creating it of terminating the trust. As was pointed out in a former opinion, the effect of this was to make the position of the depositors similar to that of cestui que trustent—they were not technical cestui que trustent, for that position could only arise upon the failure of the banks, and a necessity to have recourse to the securities deposited for the benefit of the depositors. But a condition was created which gave to the depositor a distinct interest in the preservation of the fund in the hands of the official