APPENDIX A.

DECISIONS.

Arranged alphabetically with reference to jurisdictions.

ALABAMA.

A IN TRUST FOR B.

Sayre v. Weil, (1891), 94 Ala. 466, 10 So. Rep. 546. A deposit by A in trust for B, intending the deposit as a gift to B creates an irrevocable trust. Rights of bank discussed.

An account was opened with a bank, entitled "D. Weil, trustee for the Goldman children," the same being the grandchildren of the depositor. He testified: "I put it there as a gift to them every week so that when they grew up they would have something to fall back on." He subsequently directed the bank to apply to the deposit to the payment of a note of his which the bank held.

As to the rights of the parties the Court said: "Under all the authorities we hold that the trust was completed and irrevocable, and that nothing remained in the trustee but a mere naked legal title. We hold the law to be, that a deposit is a matter of contract between the depositor and the bank. We further hold that if

D. Weil as trustee had drawn against this fund in his trust character, Moses Brothers (bankers) were under no legal duty to inquire into the purposes intended, or the use to be made by the trustee of the money; and if his drafts were paid in ignorance of any improper use intended by the trustee, they would not be responsible; that payment of such drafts would be in due course of banking business

and would discharge them from liability. When, however D. Weil proposed to apply this trust money in satisfaction of his own individual indebtedness, Moses Bros. knew that the funds were trust funds, and that the proposition amounted to a violation of his trust. Such an agreement cannot be upheld against the cestui que trust (beneficiary). The cestui que trust may afterwards ratify such unauthorized application of the trust fund, and hold Weil responsible, or they may repudiate the payment in toto and hold Moses Bros. as their debtors."

ARKANSAS.

DEPOSIT IN A'S NAME.

Smithwick v. Bank of Corning, (Ark. 1910), 130 S. W. Rep. 166.

Frequent declarations by a depositor that money on deposit in his name belongs to another will not convert the deposit into a trust fund. The mere intention, without acts, will not create a trust. And the party in whose favor such declarations are made, cannot recover the deposit from the bank.

CALIFORNIA.

A OR B.

Denigan v. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society, (1899), 127 Cal. 137, 59 Pac. Rep. 389.

A deposit by a wife of her money in an account, payable to herself or her husband, does not, standing alone, constitute a valid gift.

Ellen Denigan deposited $1,700, her own money, in the Hibernia Savings & Loan Society and received a pass book entitled "Frank Denigan or Ellen Denigan in account with the Hibernia Savings & Loan Society". Later $1,300 more was deposited. Upon Ellen's death

the husband caused the money to be transferred to a new account entitled "Francis Denigan or James Denigan," James being a nephew of Francis. Later Francis gave an order for $1,000 to one Connelly. Francis died the next day and the $1,000 was paid to Connelly after his death. James, the nephew, presented the pass book and demanded the entire deposit including the $1,000 paid to Connelly. The administrator of Francis and the administrator of Ellen also claimed the fund. It was held that the administrator of Ellen was entitled to the money. There had never been any valid gift to Francis and consequently neither he nor James had any claim. It was not shown that Francis ever had possession of the bank book until after Ellen's death. "The form in which the deposit was made was equally consistent with a desire on the part of the wife to give to her husband authority to withdraw money from the bank from time to time as she might need it."

A AND B, PAYABLE TO EITHER.

Denigan v. San Francisco Savings Union, (1899), 127 Cal. 142, 59 Pac. Rep. 390.

A deposit by a married woman of her money in the names of herself and her husband, payable to the order of either of them, does not, standing alone, give the husband such a joint interest in the deposit as to entitle him to claim it against the wife's executor.

Upon the death of one Ellen Denigan there was a deposit in the San Francisco Savings Union in the names of herself and her husband, payable to either of them. The account originated in a single deposit of $3,000 belonging to the wife. After the wife's death, Francis Denigan the husband caused the sum of $1,400 to be transferred to an account entitled "Frank Denigan or James Denigan." After Frank's death James brought this action against the bank. The bank paid the money into

court and the administrator of Frank Denigan was substituted as defendant. It was held that as the money belonged to the separate estate of Ellen Denigan at the time of the original deposit and as there was no evidence showing an intent on her part to part with title to the money, it remained her separate property at the time of her death, notwithstanding the form of the deposit.

The court said: "Title by survivorship exists only when the estate is held in joint ownership, and, unless the deposit was owned by Francis in the lifetime of Ellen jointly with her, there was no joint interest therein to which the incident of survivorship could attach. We have seen that she did not part with her title to the deposit by reason of the form in which it was made, and, as the title of Francis depends entirely thereon, it is evident that he had no joint interest with her in the moneys so deposited. * * While the bank would have been authorized to pay all or any portion of it to him. (Francis) in her lifetime he could have been compelled to account to her for what he might thus receive."

*

A, PAY TO A, B or C.

Booth v. Oakland Bank of Savings, (1898), 122 Cal. 19, 54 Pac. Rep. 370.

A, who had a savings bank account, signed the following paper: "To Oakland Bank of Savings, May 17, 1892, in re savings deposit 7041, in my name. Pay to the individual order of either B, or C, or myself. (Signed) A.” A died still owning part of the deposit, and having retained the bank book with the knowledge of the bank. It was held that the transaction fell short of a gift, but that it was a trust in favor of B and C. It was unnecessary to show an acceptance. The action started by B and the administrator of C was a sufficient acceptance. Though revoked as to part of the deposit by subsequent withdrawals, the trust remained effective as to the balance.

CONNECTICUT.

A TRUSTEE FOR B.

66

Minor v. Rogers, Executor, (1873), 40 Conn. 512. A deposited a sum of money in the name of " A trustee for B." B was a minor, and A intended, when she made the deposit, that it should be for the benefit of B, and a few days after, she informed B's father that she had put some money in the savings bank for B, and that he would need it for his education. A retained the pass book and afterwards drew out the money. In her will she disposed of all her estate and made no mention of B or of the deposit. B never knew of the deposit until after the death of A. In an action by B against the executor of the estate of A, he was given judgment for the deposit with interest.

Held: When A made the deposit in the form and with the intention stated, the beneficial interest immediately vested in B. A retained merely the bare, legal, title as trustee for B. The trust was complete when the money was deposited and A could not thereafter annul the transaction as she attempted to do.

On March 30, 1861, Mary Daniels, a wealthy widow, living at Branford and having no children, went to New Haven with William A. Minor, a boy thirteen years of age, who resided with his parents, who were near neighbors and friendly to Mrs. Daniels, and after inquiring particularly about his middle name, left him in a store with directions to wait for her. She then visited the New Haven Savings Bank (where at the time and for a year or two after, she had no deposit except the one now to be mentioned) and deposited in the bank $250, receiving the usual bank book made out to

"Mary Daniels as trustee of William A. Minor."

The semi-annual interest was afterwards added upon the book up to January 1863, and again up to January 1864.