Thompson v. Hazelwood Savings & Trust Co.

Citations

• 234 Pa. 452
• 83 A. 284
• 1912 Pa. LEXIS 669

Syllabus

<p>Banks and banhing — Deposit on notice — Deposit booh — Regulations as to withdrawal — Deposit as collateral for note.</p> <p>1. A printed regulation in a deposit book issued by a bank that the deposit could only be withdrawn upon four months’ notice, does not constitute a contract that under any and all circumstances the deposit would be paid back upon four months notice. Thus the bank may show that when the deposit was made and accepted there was a contemporaneous agreement that the depositor would leave the whole of the deposit remain in the bank until the note of a corporation of which he was president was paid in full. If in an action to recover such deposit after four months notice, the bank shows by the clear, precise and indubitable evidence of two witnesses that such a contemporaneous agreement was made at the time of the deposit, a verdict and judgment for the bank will be sustained.</p> <p>2. The agreement that the deposit should remain amounted to a pledge of the plaintiff’s money, and gave the bank a lien thereon until the note should be paid in full. There was sufficient consideration to support the depositor’s promise, and the oral agreement was not within the statute of frauds; nor was the agreement void because of uncertainty in its terms. The note was for a fixed period, and the agreement was that the deposit should remain until the note was paid in full.</p>