Page images
PDF
EPUB

either."

66

In another bank an account was opened in the two names, either to draw whole or part." It appeared that all but $100 of the money belonged to the wife. There was no evidence as to the source of the $100. The wife died after the husband and the money was claimed by the administrator of the husband and by the wife's administrator.

It was held that the money belonged to the wife's estate. It was said in the opinion that the form of the deposit indicated an intent that the fund should belong to the survivor, if not withdrawn during the lifetime of both. It was also held that the husband's estate was not liable for any money which he had drawn and used for his own benefit.

MICHIGAN.

DEPOSIT OF A's MONEY PAYABLE TO B OR C. Sav. Bank v. Look, (1893), 95 Mich. 7, 54 N. W. Rep. 629.

A, the wife of B, shortly before her death, had a sum of money in a trunk, and declared that at her death B and C were to have the money, and the survivor of them was to take it; but there was no delivery of the money before A's death. Afterwards B and C deposited the money in a savings bank, payable to either B or C. B died, and C claimed the money as survivor; the executor of B also claimed it; also the administrator of A. The bank refused to pay any of the claimants and brought a bill of interpleader.

Held: The bank took the proper action in bringing a bill of interpleader, otherwise it was subject to three actions by the respective claimants. Notwithstanding by the terms of the deposit, it was payable to C, the bank was right in refusing to pay it to her. If the bank paid to any one of the claimants, other litigation would or might arise and the bank be involved in needless litigation.

Further held: There was no valid gift causa mortis and the money belongs to the estate of A.

A IN TRUST FOR B.

O'Neil v. Greenwood, (1895), 106 Mich. 572, 64 N. W. Rep. 511.

A, the owner of certain notes and certificates of deposit, enclosed the same in separate envelopes, together with bills of sale thereof to his child and grandchild, and indorsed upon the envelopes the names of the respective beneficiaries. At the time he stated that he should, during his life, collect the interest accruing on the obligations, but that the principal sum was upon his death to be the property of the persons named and that the papers should then be delivered to them. He retained the instruments during his lifetime, collecting the interest thereon in accordance with the intentions so expressed; but he frequently declared that he held the notes and certificates in trust for such persons, and at his death the papers so set apart, or obligations of equal value, were found to be intact.

Held: A trust was created for the parties named, which was enforceable in equity. The creation of a trust does not depend upon the use of a particular form of words, but it may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.

In order to create a trust in the donor, however, there must be an act or series of acts, sufficient to divest him of the equitable ownership and vest such ownership in the donee.

The donor may become a trustee for the donee, though retaining a life use of the trust fund.

Where a gift, otherwise complete, is beneficial to the donee, an acceptance will be implied.

It would seem to be the rule in Michigan that the execution of an instrument which, if delivered, would operate as a transfer of title to property, with intention

to effectuate such purpose, operates as a declaration of trust, although the possession of such instrument be retained by the grantor. But however this may be, it cannot be said that the existence of such an instrument is inconsistent with an intention to create a trust in the grantor, as evidenced by other acts, where it appears that it was not intended to operate as a conveyance of the legal title until after full performance of the trust.

A OR B.

Burns v. Burns, (1903), 132 Mich. 441, 93 N. W. Rep. 1077.

The addition of a wife's name to a husband's bank account does not establish a gift to her when the husband retains control of the fund.

A depositor in the Detroit Savings Bank instructed the teller to fix the account so that either he or his wife could draw the money at any time. The teller accordingly put the wife's name in the book opposite the name of the depositor. Later the wife called at the bank and stated that her husband was dangerously ill and that his recovery was unlikely.

The teller advised her to draw the money and open a new account in her name, which she did. Subsequently the husband died and the question of the ownership of the fund arose. At the time when the husband made his will he was asked about the bank account and responded that it belonged to his wife. It was held that the money belonged to the husband's estate and not to the wife. There was no gift to the wife for the reason that he never relinquished dominion and control of the fund.

MISSOURI.

A AND B.

Craig v. Bradley, (Mo., 1911), 134 S. W. Rep. 1081. Whether or not a deposit by a man of his money in the

names of himself and his wife creates an estate by the entirety, entitling the wife to the deposit on the husband's death, depends upon the intention of the depositor. In this case it was held that the depositor intended to create such an estate.

William E. Bradley opened two bank accounts in the names of "William E. and Julia A. Bradley," Julia being the wife of William. Julia survived William and after her death her administrator claimed the funds on the theory that the deposits constituted an estate by the entirety which, on the death of William, passed to Julia. The administrator, of the husband, who was the defendant in the action, contended that, while formerly there could be estates in entirety in personal property, such estates were in effect abolished by the married women's statutes which, in a property sense, disunite husband and wife. It was held that while the married women's statutes abolished the legal unity between husband and wife, which gave rise to estates by entirety, they left the estate itself intact. The mere deposit by the husband of money in the names of himself and his wife would not of itself conclusively establish the creation of an estate by entirety. Whether or not such an estate was created was held to depend upon the intention of the depositor. It was held that the circumstances surrounding the deposits left no doubt that the husband intended that the survivor was to have all of the deposits. An estate in entirety was, therefore, created and the wife's estate was entitled to the funds.

NEW HAMPSHIRE.

A FOR THE BENEFIT OF B.

Perry's Petition, (1884), 16 N. H. 44.

A deposited money in a savings bank for the benefit of B, to be paid to B when she arrived at the age of 21. Before B arrived at the age of 21, A was taxed as owner of the deposit.

Held: A remained owner of the deposit, as it had not been accepted by B and A was subject to taxation as owner.

On July 1, 1834, Caleb Perry made a special deposit in the Cheshire Provident Institution for Savings in the following terms:

July 1, 1834. I this day deposit in the Cheshire Provident Institution for Savings, $400, for the benefit of Caroline Perry, only child of the late Caleb Perry, late of Troy, N. H., the principal and interest to be paid to Isaid Caroline when she arrives at the age of 21 years and not before. And in case of her decease before she arrives at that age, the same is to be paid to me or my heirs on demand.

Caleb Perry."

On September 29, 1834, Caleb Perry made another deposit of $400 in the same terms.

On May 25, 1842, he called on the trustees at the bank and told them he had mistaken the amount of his property and wished to withdraw the interest which had accumulated on the sums deposited, amounting to $255.66, and it was then paid to him.

On tendering to the selectmen of the town of Temple an invoice of his property liable to taxation on April 1, 1843, Perry spoke of the above sums but denied his liability to pay tax therefor and omitted their amount from his invoice. The selectmen thereupon assessed him for four times the amount of the deposits by way of doomage. Caroline Perry was then alive and not reached the age of 21. Perry petitioned the court for an abatement of such taxes.

Held: Perry resided in the state and was therefore liable to be taxed for the money deposited in the bank provided he was the owner of it. We are of the opinion that Perry was the owner, notwithstanding the deposit was to the use of Caroline Perry. We think that the deposit in the bank cannot be distinguished from a de

« PreviousContinue »