Tillman v. Guaranty Trust Co.
Cases that cite this one
24 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ngoc Dung Thi Tran v. Citibank N.A. (District Court, S.D. New York 1983)
- Tat Ba v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (District Court, S.D. New York 1984)
- Chau Kieu Nguyen v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA (11th Cir. 2013)
- Garcia v. Chase Manhattan Bank (2d Cir. 1984)
- Garcia v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (2d Cir. 1984)
- Chau Kieu Nguyen v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA (11th Cir. 2013)
- Lien Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank (9th Cir. 2006)
- Allied Fidelity Insurance Co. v. Bank of Oklahoma, National Ass'n (Okla. 1995)
- American Building Maintenance Co. of California Inc. v. Federation Bank & Trust Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1963)
- Steingut v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York (2d Cir. 1947)
- Miller v. National City Bank of New York (District Court, S.D. New York 1946)
- United States v. Guaranty Trust Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1945)
- Steingut v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York (District Court, S.D. New York 1944)
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1938)
- United States v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York (2d Cir. 1938)
- United States v. Guaranty Trust Co. (2d Cir. 1937)
- Gonik v. Israel Discount Bank (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Bovarnick v. Fleet National Bank (Mass. App. Ct. 2006)
- In re the Estate of Hamilton (New York Surrogate's Court 1989)
- Kelly v. Bremmerman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1965)
- Apton v. Barclays Bank, Ltd. (New York Supreme Court 1948)
- People v. Minuse (New York Supreme Court 1947)
- Classen-Smith v. National City Bank (N.Y. 1943)
- Dougherty v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (New York Supreme Court 1932)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The complaint sets forth a cause of action for a deposit of money not to be repaid at a fixed time but only upon special demand. In October, 1920, the Deutsche Bank at the request of the depositor sent to the defendant a letter of inquiry concerning the status of the deposit account. The letter contained no present demand for the payment or transfer of the money on deposit. Demand was to await the reply to the inquiry. The defendant in reply stated unequivocally that the plaintiff’s assignors had no valid claim to any deposit and that the defendant held no “ balance ” at their disposal. Thereafter no demand was necessary to entitle the plaintiff’s assignors to maintain an action for the money on deposit. (Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N. Y. 506; Sokoloff v. National City Bank, 250 N. Y. 69.) The period of limitation during which an action may be brought must be computed from the time of the accruing of the right to relief by action, except as otherwise specifically prescribed by statute. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 15.) Special rules prescribed in section 15 of the Practice Act govern the computation of periods of limitation where a right exists but a demand is necessary to entitle a person to maintain an action. So long as demand is necessary to entitle a depositor to bring an action, the provisions of section 15 apply. They have no application after right to relief by action is complete without demand. By failure to make a demand which is unnecessary, a depositor cannot prevent the period of limitation from running against a cause of action which he is entitled to maintain without demand.
*298 The court at Special Term did not err either in denying the motion to vacate the ex parte order extending defendant’s time, or in granting the motion to dismiss the complaint.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.