p. 46began, in August, 1886, tq make the large deposits of profits and interest in the Dry Dock Savings Institution above referred to. From 1870 until the death of William Haux, Sr., the pass books of this account in dispute always remained vin his possession or subject to his control, and on one occasion he withdrew $197.36 from the account, thereby reducing the amount of money therein to the $3,000 limit. On the same day, m January, 1870, when the account in dispute was opened, William Haux opened another account in the same institution. “William Haux, in Trust for William Haux”- and the pass book of this account was delivered to William Haux, Jr., his son, and always remained in his possession or subject to his control. It was further shown that when William Haux, Sr., made arrangements to have his will drawn, he stated to Dr. Hillert that he had money deposited in the German Savings Bank and in the Dry Dock Savings Institution, and that William Hátix, Sr., had no account in the Dry Dock Institution except this alleged trust fund.
H. M. Hitchings, for app’lts; Joseph Rowan, for resp’ts.
The rule now established in this state is that whether or not a trust was created depends upon"the intention of the donor at the time of the opening of the account and of the deposits made in the bank; and that question is a question of fact, to be determined in each particular case from the acts and declarations of the parties and the circumstances surrounding the transaction at the time of the performance of the several acts. Cunningham v. Davenport, 147 N. Y. 43 ; 69 St. Rep. 302 . We think: it clear in this, case that there was evidence before the trial court to sustain his findings that there was no intention upon the part of the depositor to create a trust in respect to the balance remaining in bank at the time of his death, and that that finding should not be interfered with on appeal.
The judgment, therefore, should be affirmed, with costs.