Hellman v. McWilliams

Searls, C. This is an action brought to determine whether the estate of Eli W. Hawkins, deceased, or his minor children, are entitled to certain money in the hands of plaintiff.

The judgment awarded the property to the minor children, from which judgment, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, the defendant, W. D. Stephenson, administrator of the estate of Eli W. Hawkins, deceased, appeals.

In September, 1879, there was due to Eli W. Hawkins from the Odd Fellows' Savings Bank the sum of $14,334.73, in evidence of which Hawkins held a pass-book of said bank, issued to him by the latter, showing said amount to be due.

The bank was in process of liquidation. On the eighth day of September, 1879, said Hawkins requested plaintiff to allow him, the said Hawkins, to assign to plaintiff the whole amount due from the bank, to be held by plaintiff in trust for the use and benefit of the minor children of Hawkins, reserving to himself, however, the right to draw such sums of said money from the trustee as he might deem proper for his own use.

Plaintiff agreed to accept the trust, and Hawkins verbally assigned to him all of said moneys, to be held by him in trust as aforesaid.

Hawkins delivered his pass-book to plaintiff, who has since retained it.

In order to carry into effect the assignment, and to facilitate the collection of the money for Heilman as [451]such trustee, Hawkins proposed to make a written assignment directly to said Heilman; but to facilitate the collection of the money and at the request of the latter, the assignment was made to the Bank of California, a corporation doing business in San Francisco, where the money was to be collected; and thereupon said Bank of California collected the money as agent and correspondent of Heilman, to whom it was transmitted at Los Angeles, the place of his residence.

Subsequent to the assignment, a power of attorney was also executed by Hawkins, at the request of Heilman, to • the Bank of California, authorizing the latter to collect and receipt for the money.

This seems to have been done to simplify the process of collection under the rule of the Odd Fellows’ Bank, and is found by the court to have been done “ in furtherance of said assignment and trust in the said Heilman.”