1. At the time appellant gave respondent bank his three promissory notes he deposited shares of stock as collateral. This did not create a trust or other fiduciary relationship between the parties. Their relation was that of pledgor and pledgee.
2. There is nothing in the conditions under which respondent bank was to hold the stock that obligated the bank to make sale thereof, although it had the power so to do. In the absence of such obligation, its duty was merely to exercise ordinary care, and it would be liable only for neglect of such care.
3. If, as alleged in appellant's bill of complaint, failure or refusal by the respondent bank to sell the stock at his request or demand constituted negligence or violation of a duty owed to him by the bank, such allegations, if proved in the law suit instituted by the bank for the balance remaining due on appellant's notes after sale of the collateral, would prove a valid defense to that suit. No ground for equitable intervention on that score is presented by the bill.
4. The notes on which respondent bank sues appellant at law contain an agreement that in default of payment the bank may sell the collateral and that appellant will remain "responsible, however, for any and all deficiency in payment of principal and interest, and hereby waiving any and every benefit, exemption and privilege under any law now or hereafter to be in force * * *." Construing this as a waiver of the statute of limitations, appellant by his bill seeks to have the bank enjoined from alleging in its law action any waiver of the statute by appellant. Held, the bill contains no allegation that appellant was induced by fraud or other unconscionable act of the bank to enter into the waiver provision. If it were so alleged, it would show a defense available to him in the law action. The law court can determine whether appellant agreed not to claim the benefit of the statute.
5. The alleged waiver agreement contained in the notes, and the bank's failure to sell appellant's stock on his request made nearly three years after the agreement was entered into, are separate and distinct incidents in the transaction between them. The bank's refusal, even if wrongful, to recognize his request to sell his stock, does not work an estoppel against the bank pleading the waiver in its action at law.
6. The statute of limitations is for the benefit of individuals, and not to secure general objects of policy. It may be waived by express agreement.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, COLIE, WACHENFELD, EASTWOOD, BURLING, WELLS, DILL, FREUND, McLEAN, SCHETTINO, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.