Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 118

Thread: A regular deposit of lawful money.

  1. #1

    A regular deposit of lawful money.

    A possible non-confrontational and non-endorsement for checks: ‘A regular deposit of lawful money.’

    From Bouviers 1856 (online),

    REGULAR DEPOSIT. One where the thing deposited must be returned. It is distinguished from an irregular deposit.


    IRREGULAR DEPOSIT. This name is given to that kind of deposit, where the thing deposited need not be returned; as, where a man deposits, in the usual way, money in bank for safe keeping, for in this case the title to the identical money becomes vested in the bank, and he receives in its place other money.

    Hence, a lawful (substantive) deposit cannot be replaced with a legal (form of law) interpretation of that deposit.
    Last edited by RThomas; 08-16-11 at 07:42 AM. Reason: Clarification of thought.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Earth, Alpha Quadrant.
    Posts
    142
    Good find!

  3. #3
    Thanks! I agree - a good find. Non-endorsement of paychecks does not seem to be much of an issue. We have a thread and member Karl Nathan sharing his experience but I think it more that he is in a small community and friendly with the people at the bank. Being close and friendly, believe it or not, is the source of the confrontation! In other words, speaking openly in conversation and explaining things that need no explanation is what is causing the illusion that the bank can abstain from the non-endorsement transactions. Karl Nathan prefers to be polite than to just tell his friends - Just do it!

    The confrontation I am concerned about is that The Memo seems to have circulated (from the OCC?) so that when a customer support manager calls the attorney about the Signature Card for electronic transfers, before any conversation can occur, the attorney is warning, Do not allow any extra verbiage on the Signature Card form! It is traditional to accept a scribbled signature, sometimes only a first letter scribble. So what would be the problem with changing my signature to "Lawful Money"?



  4. #4
    Yes, GREAT find RThomas!

    Exactly, David! On certain documents I have changed my signature to, "Without Prejudice".

  5. #5

  6. #6
    David,

    I agree that there is nothing wrong with your form of endorsement. It is my nature to always seek improvement in what I know and what I do.

    Shikamaru,

    The definitions in blacks 1 through 5 of regular and irregular deposits (and general vs. special (>sounds like jurisdiction<)) expound on what I posted above which conceptually says the same as your noted post but in different words. Blacks 6 and forward removed the definitions. There are two non-identical types of money being used but the sum is the same. The definitions in Blacks show how the conversion takes place. Your paycheck (with a blank endorsement) is a general irregular deposit and its identical money is that type with substance which is loaned to the bank (they get vested title). They take your substantive money and (without disclosure) give back debt money (not ‘identical,’ but ‘other money’). These two monies are 180 degrees the opposite (mirror images) with the same sum (Blacks uses the terms ‘not the same money’ along with ‘a like sum’).

    RThomas

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by RThomas View Post
    Shikamaru,

    The definitions in blacks 1 through 5 of regular and irregular deposits (and general vs. special (>sounds like jurisdiction<)) expound on what I posted above which conceptually says the same as your noted post but in different words. Blacks 6 and forward removed the definitions. There are two non-identical types of money being used but the sum is the same. The definitions in Blacks show how the conversion takes place. Your paycheck (with a blank endorsement) is a general irregular deposit and its identical money is that type with substance which is loaned to the bank (they get vested title). They take your substantive money and (without disclosure) give back debt money (not ‘identical,’ but ‘other money’). These two monies are 180 degrees the opposite (mirror images) with the same sum (Blacks uses the terms ‘not the same money’ along with ‘a like sum’).

    RThomas
    I completely concur.

    The attachment of the link by me was my sad attempt to get more traffic to the Lex Mercatoria area of the board ....LOL.

  8. #8
    I am proposing that the signature is quite flexible and would solve things for Karl Nathan too.

    If at my boss's bank, the full non-endorsement, since that goes over for cashing my paycheck. At my bank I could sign "Lawful Money" or "Regular Deposit of Lawful Money". The teller would say, this is not the signature on your Signature Card and I would say, Let me correct the Signature Card.

    Planet Merrill can be fun!

  9. #9
    P.S. Thinking this through a bit. You got that verbiage from 1856 (Bouvier's). So that was way before 1913 and 1933 when irregular deposits became the norm.

    In other words you would be demanding that your deposit be regarded as a "regular" deposit - that you did not want the bankers to do anything "irregular" with it like holding it in reserve for loans and fractional lending.

    Good find! Now you have me wondering if it might go over better than the, Lawful Money Demanded pursuant to Title 12 USC §411? My guess is that the attorneys who gave it any thought at all would justify things by saying, Abnormal is the New Normal. By regular, he must mean Regular.

  10. #10
    David,

    The definitions were in Blacks up till 1990 when the 6th edition came out. Your thoughts are the same as mine; few would question it up front. Only the most learned attorneys would catch it. You're reversing their projected confusion back to them. It could be slightly expanded to “A regular deposit of lawful money for credit of identical money.” With proper inquiry this may position them to have to admit that your prior deposits were not considered regular and that you were not credited with lawful money but given an equal sum of ‘other’ but ‘not the same’ ‘specie’ of money. This may be the way to force payment of gold and silver ‘specie’ by weight (dollars) as opposed to Federal Reserve Notes denominated as an equivalent ‘sum’ of dollars. In other words, your checks might have to be paid ‘dollar for dollar’ in specie and not an equivalent ‘sum’ of ‘other’ money.

    A blank or general endorsement might be your oath spoken granting general jurisdiction to treat your deposit as they wish and repay you with any form of money they wish, thus your deposit would be considered irregular. A special endorsement might be the same as a special grant of jurisdiction for a specific purpose for your deposit that it be treated as a regular deposit (i.e. I deposit $100 dollars in gold and I want $100 dollars in gold paid back (same specie)). This is clearly a regular accounting of your deposit and what most people who are still confused over forms of money think they have today. We know that today’s normal bank practices with their treatment of deposits are irregular (a conversion is occurring).

    A general irregular deposit is a loan to the bank. At least as early as 1937 all deposits were presumed to be general deposits. I’m still searching for earlier cases to see if a change took place and at what period of time.

    See: Woolley v. City of Natchez, 89 F. 2d 937 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1937
    89 F.2d 937 (1937)



    The amounts deposited stood and remained as a credit to the city, and subject to its withdrawal until actually applied to the payment of the bonds and coupons. It is equally elementary that all deposits in a bank are general unless at the time of making there is a definite, special agreement to the contrary. It is therefore elementary law that the presumption with reference to a bank deposit is that it is general, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Borgess Hospital v. Union Industrial Trust & Savings Bank, 265 Mich. 156, 251 N.W. 363; Jennings v. United States F. & G. Co., 294 U.S. 216, 55 S.Ct. 394, 79 L.Ed. 869, 99 A.L.R. 1248; Keyes v. Paducah & I. R. R. Co. (C.C.A.) 61 F.(2d) 611, 86 A. L.R. 203; Santee Timber Corporation v. Elliott (C.C.A.) 70 F.(2d) 179, 93 A.L.R. 874; Pres. and Directors of Manhattan Co. v. Blake, 148 U.S. 412, 13 S.Ct. 640, 37 L. Ed. 504. Cf. Morse Banking Vol. 1, § 289; Bouvier, p. 293; Webster's Dictionary "Deposit (a)."

    I’ll keep digging.

    RThomas
    Last edited by RThomas; 08-17-11 at 07:45 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •