Parker v. Central Bank & Trust Co.

BkogdeN, J. The questions of law involved in the appeal may be stated as follows: (1) Is the deposit which is the subject of the controversy “a deposit for a specific purpose” as contemplated and defined by law? (2) Does such deposit entitle the owner or beneficiary thereof to a preferred claim upon the assets of an insolvent bank? Bank deposits are classified by law as general deposits, special deposits, and deposits for a specific purpose. The definitions of such de *233 posits are set forth in Corporation Commission v. Trust Co., 193 N. C., 696, 138 S. E., 22. Tbe Court says: “A deposit for a specific purpose is made when money or property is delivered to a bank to be applied to a designated object, or for a purpose wbicb is particularly defined, as, for example, the payment by the bank of a specified debt. It is neither general nor wholly special. It partakes of the nature of a special deposit to the extent that the title remains in the depositor, and does not pass to the bank. The consequence is that the money, if not applied, or if misapplied, may be recovered as a trust deposit.” The general principles governing such deposits have been discussed and applied in the following cases, to wit: Bank v. Davis, 114 N. C., 343, 19 S. E., 280; Corporation Commission v. Trust Co., 193 N. C., 696, 138 S. E., 22; Corporation Commission v. Trust Co., 194 N. C., 125, 138 S. E., 530; Bank v. Corporation Commission, 201 N. C., 381, 160 S. E., 360. The whole question is discussed with great clearness of detail by Parker, Circuit J., in Poission v. Williams; First National Bank of Ventura v. Williams; Marshburn v. Williams, 15 Fed. (2d), pp. 582, et seq. The foregoing decisions and others of like tenor establish certain ear-marks or indicia by which a deposit for a specific purpose or a trust deposit may be recognized and established. These indicia may be classified as follows: (1) The parties must intend at the time the deposit is made that the proceeds thereof shall remain segregated and not commingled with the general funds of the bank and used by it in accordance with the ordinary customs or usages of banking practice; (2) there must be an agreement, express or implied, that such deposit shall not constitute a part of the general funds of the bank and subject to its exclusive use and control in the ordinary course and prosecution of its business; (3) notice or knowledge of the trust character of the deposit must be disclosed or appear at the time the deposit is received by the bank; (4) the deposit must, in fact, swell or increase the assets of the bank; (5) the mere tracing of the money into the common funds of the bank is not a sufficient identification or segregation of the deposit. Applying the pertinent principles of law to the facts disclosed by the record, it is manifest that the deposit involved in this case was delivered to the bank to be applied to a designated object or for a purpose particularly defined in the escrow agreement. This escrow agreement put the bank upon notice that the fund was to be held pending an arbitration proceeding and to be disbursed in accordance with the award. Indeed, the bank received the fund with sufficient knowledge of the trust character and quality of the deposit, upon express agreement that such fund was to be used exclusively for the designated purpose. Therefore, the *234 court is of tbe opinion that the fund was a trust deposit. Consequently, the law, as applied by decisions and textwriters impresses upon such fund a preferential quality. Hence, it is concluded that the judgment was correct. Affirmed.