Majority
p. 586Beaver v. Beaver et al. (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department. July 6,1889.) “Mayham, J. On the 5th day of July, 1866, John O. Beaver deposited in the Ulster County Savings Institution $854.04, and received from said institution a book headed as follows: ‘Ulster County Savings Institution, in account with Asahel G. Beaver.’ On the debtor side of that account the institution charges itself, July 5, 1866, with $854.04. On the same book, and under date of October 5th of the same year, it charges itself with $145.96. These charges are signed, respectively, by the treasurer of said institution. On the credit side of said account the institution is credited, under date of April 6, 1867, by cash, $27.29, under which is written, in his own handwriting, the name of John O. Beaver. The book shows that from time to time the interest upoh the balance of this account is added to the principal, which at the last computation, January 1, 1888, amounts to the sum of $2,713.70. John O. Beaver was the father of Asahel Beaver, who at the time of the making of the first deposit was about 17 years of age, and resided with his father, John 0. At the time of making the deposit first above referred to the following statement was made upon the book of the Savings Institution: * I, Asahel G. Beaver, of Esopus, Ulster county, hereby request the officers of the Ulster County Savings Institution to receive from me the sum of $854.04, and to open an account with me in said institution, which account shall be subject to all the regulations and restrictions contained in the by-laws, a copy of which I hereby acknowledge to have received, and bind and obligate myself, my heirs and representatives, to conform thereto, and to be governed thereby ire all respects. Witness my hand this 5th day of July, 1866. Residence, Esopus; age, 17 years; place of birth, Esopus. [Under this was written, in his own hand, the name of] John O. Beaver.’ “The evidence does not disclose who paid into the Savings Institution the $145.96. The book received by John 0. Beaver at the time of making the deposit by him was retained by him, and was found by the defendants among his papers after his death. There is no positive proof that the money deposited by John 0. Beaver on the 5th day of July, 1866, was his, but I think the evi
Headnote
Gift—Inteb Vivos—Deposit in Bank.A father who deposits his own money in a savings hank to the credit of his infant son, and leaves it there until his death, retaining possession of the pass-book, thereby makes an executed gift of the money to his son.
Appeal from circuit court, Ulster county.
Action by Minerva J. Beaver, as executrix of Asahel G. Beaver, deceased, against Charles 0. Beaver and Lyman Terpenning, as administrators of John 0. Beaver, deceased. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. The court below rendered the following opinion:
p. 587deuce justifies the conclusion that it was, and therefore Iso find as a question of fact. But, as there is no evidence-in the case except that appearing on the face of the book as to the title or source from which the $145.96 came, I shall hold and find as a question of fact that it was the money of Asahel G. Beaver, and deposited by him or for his benefit. That being so, the plaintiff would be entitled to that amount, and its accumulation from the time of the deposit.
“The remaining contention is as to whether the facts in this case show an executed gift of the $854.04 by John 0. Beaver to Asahel Beaver at the time of the deposit of that sum in the savings institution. Asahel G-. Beaver died before his father, and by his will devised and bequeathed all his property to his widow, and made her his sole executrix, who duly qualified as such. John 0. Beaver died before the commencement of this action, intestate, and the defendants were duly appointed his administrators. If the deposit of this $854.04 by John O. Beaver in the bank in the name of Asahel G. Beaver was under the circumstances of the case an executed gift, then the plaintiff is entitled to it and its accumulations. If it was not an executed gift, then the title to the same remained in John 0. Beaver, and on his death vested in his personal representatives, in which case the plaintiff could not recover as to that sum. The rule that a gift, tobe effectual, must be executed, is elementary, and requires no reference to citations of authorities. The question as to what constitutes an executed gift is more difficult of solution. The act of the defendant’s intestate in depositing the money in the savings institution in the name of and to the credit of the plaintiff’s testator vested the title in him, if John O. at that time intended to vest the title in Asahel. That intention must be gathered from the circumstances bearing upon thesubject. John O. received from the bank an account or pass book acknowledging the disposal of that money by Asahel, and crediting the same to him. He also signed a statement left with the bank, in which he in effect declares that Asahel deposited the money. This prima facie • showed that the money was deposited for and as the property of the plaintiff’s testator. Ho act or declaration of the defendant’s intestate tends to change this ’ prima facie case, except the fact that intestate kept the book; and, while this is competent evidence to be considered upon the question of intent, it is by no means conclusive upon that subject. John 0. Beaver, at the time of the deposit, so far as appears, made no reservation or exception, and imposed no qualification upon the apparent absolute title, which was vested in Asahel by the disposal of the money in the savings institution to his credit. That act, unexplained, vested the title in Asahel. Barker v. Harbeck, 2 N. Y. Supp. 425 . If John O. intended at the time and by act of deposit to give Asahel the money, his right to it then became complete. Although John 0. retained the pass-book, he would, be deemed to hold it in trust for Asahel. Orr v. McGregor, 43 Hun, 531 . The legal consequences of such a deposit was to make the savings institution the debtor of Asahel, and not of John 0., and, unexplained, he is presumed to have intended the consequences of his act. Is the fact that he retained possession of the pass-book, standing alone, sufficient to excuse him from the effect of such deposit? I think not. The deposit was made for his infant son, over whose property, as well as person, the father naturally and properly exercised some control. If tile money deposited had before the deposit belonged to Asahel, the father would in all probability have taken care of the book, and, if he had, under such circumstances his possession of the book would have cast no suspicion upon Asahel’s title to the money. The unqualified deposit of the money to Asahel’s credit made ib prima facie bis as effectually as if it originally belonged to him, and the retention of the book by his father, when on the face of the book the money appeared to belong to the son, was not sufficient alone to defeat his title, or that John 0. did not intend at the time of the deposit the legal consequence of his act. By the by-laws of the savings institution the money could be drawn on drafts made personally or by
p. 588order, in writing of the depositor, or by letters of attorney duly authenticated; but no person shall have a right to any part of the principal or interest without the production of the original book, so that su.cb payments shall be entered therein. This by-law, which constitutes a part of the contract between the company and depositor, would not justify a third person in controlling or drawing the money on presentation of the pass-book. The money can only be ■drawn on the order of the person to whose credit it is deposited, on presentation of the book. Argued before Learned, P. J„ and Landon and Ingalls, JJ.
“The mere possession of the book, therefore, by a stranger, would not give him either title to or possession of the fund. The book was only evidence of the deposit, and, not being negotiable, its possession by a person other than the one in whose name the account stood would afford no evidence sufficient to justify or require the savings institution to pay the deposit to such holder. Possession by a stranger of a pass-book of a depositor in a savings bank constitutes no evidence of a right to draw money thereon. To make payments to ■one having no other evidence of authority than possession of the book, as a protection to the bank, it is necessary for it to show some special contract with the depositor authorizing such a mode of payment. Smith v. Bank, 101 N. Y. 58 , 4 N. E. Rep. 123 . It will be seen, therefore, that the mere possession of the book by defendant intestate would not be evidence sufficient to overcome the effect of the deposit which was in the name of and to the credit of Asahei, by which prima facie he became the owner of the deposit. I do not think that the case referred to by the learned counsel for the defendants bears upon the real question in this case. Most of such citations relate to cases where there was some further act to be done by the donor, or some future contingency to occur, before the title and possession vested in the donee.
“From the facts disclosed in this case, no such future act or future contingency was referred to or embraced in the transaction by which the plaintiff testator acquired title to this fund. The deposit of the money for and credit of the same to the account of the plaintiff’s testator were positive, complete, and unequivocal acts, sufficient in law to vest the title in him at the time of the deposit; and there is no contemporaneous or subsequent act of the defendants’ intestate which justifies the conclusion that he did not at the time of the deposit intend to part with all dominion and control of the money, and vest the title thereto absolutely in Asahei. I am therefore led to the conclusion that John O. Beaver, at the time lie' deposited the $854.04 in the Ulster County Savings Institution to the credit of Asahei G-. Beaver, intended to and ■did make an executed gift of said money to the said Asahei G., who therefore became the owner thereof, and that said sum, with its accumulations, belonged to him at the time of his death, and under his will vested in his executrix, and that she, as such executrix, is entitled to recover the same in this action.”
D. M. Be Witt, for appellants. F. B. Westbrook, for respondent.
The opinion of the learned justice who decided this case is quite satisfactory. We should think nothing further needed, if the appellants had not so strongly urged that there was no executed gift. Their argument rests on the fact that John 0. Beaver continued in possession of the pass-book. Bow, (assuming that the money was originally the property of John O.,) the thing given was the money, not the book. John 0. parted with possession of the money, and put it under the control of Asahei. Asahei could draw the money, and could give a valid receipt therefor; that is, as soon ,as he was of age. Before that time his guardian could do the same. But it may be said he could not draw it without possession of the pass-book. This provision is for the security of the bank, which might be liable to a person to whom the bank-book had been assigned. Warhus v. Bank, 21 N. Y. 543 ; Bank v. Bank, 5 Hun, 605 . But it has nothing to do with the question of
p. 589
title to the money. For instance, one holding a certificate of deposit payable on its return is the owner of the money deposited. Yet to obtain that money he needs possession of the certificate. But further still “the pass-book is not negotiable paper, and its possession constitutes of itself no evidence of a right to draw money thereon. ” Smith v. Bank, 101 N. Y. 58 , 4 N. E. Rep. 123 . In Martin v. Funk, 75 N. Y. 134 , a deposit was made by A. in her name, “in trust for B.” A. kept the pass-book and drew the interest till her death, and B. was ignorant of the deposit. It was held that the deposit belonged to B. How, it was not claimed that there was any active trust. A. had no-duties to discharge in managing the property, and the decision really was that the deposit belonged to B.
In the present case, if John 0. had deposited the money in his own name, in trust for Asahel, we should have had the very circumstances of Martin v. Funk. But John 0. did more. He did not retain even the nominal title to the deposit, giving Asahel the beneficiary interest. He put the whole title in Asahel. In Martin v. Funk the retaining of the pass-book was said to be as trustee. Here it may properly be said to have been as friend or natural guardian. And we must notice in regard to Massachusetts eases that Martin v. Bunk is not in harmony with Massachusetts decisions. But it is our law, and it is thoroughly sound common sense, like everything else which came from the learned judge who wrote the opinion. It seems to be conclusive, from the case of Mabie v. Bailey, 95 N. Y. 206 , that John 0. could not have drawn out this money, even though he was in possession of the pass-book. In Scott v. Harbeck, 49 Hun, 292 , 1 N. Y. Supp. 788 , money stood in a savings bank in the name of defendant’s testatrix, in trust for plaintiff. The deceased drew it out, and used it. Her estate was held liable, although plaintiff had no knowledge of the trust. Another suggestion may be made. Suppose no pass-book had been issued, or suppose, as is sometimes the practice, the bank had kept the custody of the pass-book. Would there be any doubt then that the deposit belonged to Asahel? The pass-book is a mere voucher, —mere evidence against the bank. The rights of the parties rest in the terms of the deposit shown on .the books of the bank, and duplicated in the passbook. For these reasons, and on the opinion of the learned justice, the judgment should be aflirmed, with costs.
Ingalls, J., concurs.
Landon, J. I concur, not without doubt.
Cases cited
- Smith v. Brooklyn Savings Bank 101 N. Y. 58 p. 588, p. 589
- Martin v. Funk 75 N. Y. 134 p. 589
- Mabie v. Bailey 95 N. Y. 206 p. 589