Page images
PDF
EPUB

Id.; Presumption in Such Cases.

§ 220

before the order had been complied with, it was held that the instrument did not create either a gift inter vivos or a gift causa mortis of the fund belonging to the deceased party.

98. Id. Act of Depositor Creating Right of Survivorship.

[ocr errors]

In West v. McCullough, 123 App. Div. 846, the court held that when a husband, having a savings bank deposit in his own name, changes the account so as to stand in the names of his wife and himself, it shows, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, an intention to create a right of survivorship in the wife even though the husband never delivered the bank book and subsequently made withdrawals. At common law the same rule obtained and no delivery was necessary, which common-law right of survivorship was not changed by the acts removing the disabilities of married women. The question as to whether a joint bank deposit creates survivorship is one of intention, to be determined by presumption, in the absence of other proof.

[blocks in formation]

If a person deposits his own money in a savings bank, in his own name and that of another, not his wife, the presumption is that it was done for the purpose of convenience only; but where the deposit is made in the name of the husband and wife, it is presumed that the husband intended to benefit his wife to the extent of conferring the right of survivorship upon her. West v. McCullough, 123 App. Div. 846.

In the Matter of Rosenberg, N. Y. Law Journal of May 9, 1908, Surrogate Thomas held that where a joint deposit was made up of sums which appear to

§ 220

Note - Husband and Wife.

have been previously given by the decedent to his wife, such deposit was not taxable.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

For other decisions involving savings bank deposits in trust, joint accounts, payable to either or the survivor, etc., see McElroy v. National Savings Bank, 8 App. Div. 192, 40 N. Y. S. 340; McElroy v. Albany Savings Bank, 8 App. Div. 46, 40 N. Y. S. 422; Hallenbeck v. Hallenbeck, 103 App. Div. 109; Matter of King, 51 Misc. 375; Matter of Stebbins, 52 Misc. 438; Kelly v. Albany Trust Co., 124 App. Div. 99; Kelly v. Home Savings Bank, 103 App. Div. 141, appeal withdrawn 182 N. Y. 568; Matter of Meehan, 59 App. Div. 156; Matter of Graves, 52 Misc. 433; Moore v. Fingar, 115 N. Y. S. 1035.

Section 114 of the Banking Law was amended April 30, 1907, by chapter 247 of the laws of that year, adding thereto the following clause: "When a deposit shall be made by any person in the names of such depositor and another person and in form to be paid to either or the survivor of them, such deposit thereupon and any additions thereto made by either of such persons upon the making thereof shall become the property of such persons as joint tenants and the same, together with all interest thereon, shall be held for the exclusive use of the persons so named and may be paid to either during the lifetime of both or to the survivor after the death of one of them, and such payment and the receipt or acquittance of the one to whom such payment is made shall be a valid and sufficient release and discharge to said bank for all payments made on account of such deposit prior to the receipt by said bank of notice in writing not to pay such deposit in accordance with the terms thereof."

101. Promissory Note Payable to Husband and Wife.

In the Matter of Sanford v. Sanford, 45 N. Y. 723, the court holds that if one, in loaning money, takes a promissory note therefor, payable to the order of himself and his wife, this imports a gift to the wife in case she survives him, and delivery of the note to her by the husband is not necessary to perfect the gift. During the husband's life such note remains subject to his control, and the wife has no legal interest therein until his decease. Judge Peckham says: "The note being payable to husband and wife jointly belonged to the wife as survivor. Taking this note in the name of himself and wife shows that the husband intended thereby to give it to her in case she survived

Bond-Husband and Wife.

§ 220

him, and a delivery to her was unnecessary to perfect the gift. Assuming this to be so, yet during the life of the husband the note is subject to his control and disposition. The wife has no legal interest in it until his decease." See also Fowler v. Butterly, 78 N. Y. 68-72.

If there is no transfer of a legal interest in this gift during the husband's life, it would seem that property so held could only be considered a gift, to take effect at or after the donor's death, and would therefore be liable to taxation.

102. Bond and Mortgage Held by Husband and Wife Jointly.

Where a husband and wife each furnished half of the amount of a loan and took as security therefor a bond and mortgage payable to them jointly, — held, that, upon the death of one of them, the interest of the decedent vested, not in the survivor, but in the personal representatives of the decedent. Matter of Albrecht, 136 N. Y. 91.

The court says: 66 We are aware that there are many authorities holding that where the husband purchases a security or makes a deposit, or subscribes for stock in the joint name of himself and wife and pays therefor with his own funds, upon his death the entire security belongs to the wife if she survives him. But the decision in all these cases is put upon the ground that it is apparent from the character of the transac tion that the husband intended to give the property to his wife in the event of her survivorship, and hence the transfer possesses all the essential qualities of a gift causa mortis, which he may revoke in his lifetime

§ 220

Tenancy by the Entirety.

*

and which does not take effect until his death if not previously recalled. While he lives his control over it is unlimited and at his death it becomes her absolute property, if she survives him, but if she does not the gift is not consummated, and the husband retains the entire title. But if the husband and wife each contribute to a joint investment or to the purchase of a security and the title is taken in their joint names to be held by them, their executors, administrators, or assigns, as was the bond and mortgage in the present case, no presumption can properly arise from the nature of the act that either intended to make a gift of his or her share to the survivor."

103. Tenancy by the Entirety-Does Not Apply to Personal Property.

When a husband and wife, being tenants by the entirety, convey lands and take back a purchase-money mortgage payable to both, the survivor is not entitled to the whole proceeds of the mortgage. As a mortgage is personal property, the rule as to tenancy by the entirety does not apply; to create a survivorship there must be an agreement to that effect or a gift causa mortis. Matter of Baum, 121 App. Div. 496, 190 N. Y. 564, appeal dismissed.

104. When "Tenants in Common of the Use."

Under a conveyance to a husband and wife they take as tenants by the entirety, but they are tenants in common of the use, each being entitled to one-half of the rents and profits, so long as the question of survivorship is in abeyance. Hiles v. Fisher, 144 N. Y. 306.

[blocks in formation]

105. Agreement between Partners Does Not Create Joint Tenancy.

[ocr errors]

An agreement between partners that they were jointly" interested in all real and personal property heretofore held or now or hereafter held in the joint name or individual name of either of them, places the property referred to in the position simply of partnership property, and does not create a strict joint tenancy therein under which, on the death of one of the partners, the property would pass to the survivor, and the surrogate was right in refusing to allow the sum of $250,000, or any amount, for the alleged claim of the surviving partner to the whole assets of the firm. Matter of Wormser, 51 App. Div. 441-443, 64 N. Y. S. 897.

106. Taxability of an Estate

What Law Determines.

The taxability of an estate is to be determined by the law in existence at the date of the transfer, notwithstanding a subsequent alteration of the law. Matter of Goelet, 78 N. Y. S. 47; Matter of Davis, 149 N. Y. 539.

107. Legacy in Lieu of Dower Is Not a Debt of the Estate.

The decedent bequeathed to his wife the sum of $10,000, and also devised to her a certain house and lot in New York city. He provided that the gifts to his wife should be in lieu and bar of dower as follows: "I expressly declare the foregoing bequest and devise to my said wife to be, with the provisions already made for her, in lieu and full satisfaction of all dower

*." Subsequent to making the will, the testator conveyed to his wife all real estate which by his will he had devised to her. The widow accepted the pro

« PreviousContinue »