Adams v. Jones
| Decision Date | 06 May 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 10128,10128 |
| Citation | 258 S.W.2d 401 |
| Parties | ADAMS v. JONES. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Paul Huser, Schulenburg, for appellant.
Armond G. Schwartz, Hallettsville, for appellee.
This suit is a consolidation of two suits both relating to the estate of Lemon Adams, deceased.
In one suit the trial court denied the application of appellant, Beatrice Adams, widow of Lemon Adams, for letters of administration upon his estate, the court finding that no necessity existed for such administration.
The second suit involved a joint bank account of $1,110.92 standing in the names of deceased, Lemon Adams, 'or' his niece, appellee Ruth Jones. The trial court held this account to be the property of Ruth Jones. We will dispose of this feature of the appeal first.
Appellant and Lemon Adams consummated a common law marriage about January 4, 1949.
In 1942 Lemon Adams opened an account in the First National Bank of Schulenberg, Texas, in his own name.
In 1945 this account was changed to a joint account and the following instrument was executed by Lemon Adams and his niece Ruth Jones:
'Joint Account-Payable To Either Or Survivor
'We agree and declare that all funds now, or hereafter, deposited in this account are, and shall be our joint property and owned by us as joint tenants with right of survivorship, and not as tenants in common; and upon the death of either of us any balance in said account shall become the absolute property of the survivor. The entire account or any part thereof may be withdrawn by, or upon the order of, either of us or the survivor.
'It is especially agreed that withdrawals of funds by the survivor shall be binding upon us and upon our heirs, next of kin, legatees, assigns and personal representatives.
'(Signed) Lemon Adams
(Signed) Ruth Jones'
Ruth Jones never at any time made a deposit to such account or withdrew any money therefrom, all such deposits and withdrawals being made solely by Lemon Adams.
All of the monies deposited to such account were the separate funds of Lemon Adams.
This case turns upon the validity of the joint account agreement.
Appellee contends that the following cases are conclusive in her behalf: Chandler v. Kountze, Tex.Civ.App., 130 S.W.2d 327 (Gal. writ ref.); Pruett v. First National Bank of Temple, Tex.Civ.App., 175 S.W.2d 658 (Austin); and Shroff v. Deaton, Tex.Civ.App., 220 S.W.2d 489 (Texarkana).
In Chandler v. Kountze it was held that notwithstanding the provisions of Art. 2580, V.A.C.S., abolishing the common law doctrine of survivorship in the event of the death of a joint owner before severance that (130 S.W.2d 329):
'* * * there is nothing in the subject matter of the act which would, in our opinion, justify the presumption that the legislature intended to thereby prevent the parties to a contract, a will, or a deed of conveyance, from providing among themselves that the property in question should pass to and vest in the survivor as at common law.'
In Pruett v. Bank this Court held that the Bank was not liable for paying to the order of the survivor of a joint account a deposit created under terms similar to those involved here, the Bank having no prior notice of adverse claims. Art. 541d, V.A.C.S., repealed in 1943 1, p. 164, Acts Reg.Sess. 48th Leg., but in force when the deposit was made was cited by the court as requiring release of the Bank from liability. This statute expressly provided for the protection of the Bank in making payments under the circumstances stated.
Shroff v. Deaton followed the decision in Chandler v. Kountze under a similar state of facts but in addition based its decision on an unchallenged fact finding of a gift from the deceased joint tenant to the survivor of the joint account.
Appellant cites and discusses only one Texas authority in addition to those mentioned above as bearing upon the question presented which is Olive v. Olive, Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Dallas). In this case the joint account agreement read:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stauffer v. Henderson
...vest in the survivor as at common law." Chandler v. Kountze, 130 S.W.2d 327, 329 (Tex.Civ.App.--Galveston 1939, writ ref'd); see Adams v. Jones, 258 S.W.2d 401 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1953, no writ); Shroff v. Deaton, 220 S.W.2d 489 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1949, no writ). The power of joint ......
-
Hilley v. Hilley
...vest in the survivor as at common law. A written survivorship contract covering a joint bank account was also upheld in Adams v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 258 S.W.2d 401 (no writ). When Article 2580 was carried into and became Section 46 of the Probate Code, the language of the earlier statute w......
-
Krueger v. Williams
...v. Kountze, Tex.Civ.App., 130 S.W.2d 327, er. ref.; Edds v. Mitchell, 143 Tex. 307, 184 S.W.2d 823, 158 A.L.R. 470; Adams v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 258 S.W.2d 401; Chamberlain v. Robinson, Tex.Civ.App., 305 S.W.2d 817, er. ref.; Johnson v. Johnson, Tex.Civ.App., 306 S.W.2d 780, er. ref.; and ......
-
East Tex. Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Tyler v. Davis
...of the claim of appellants prior to the payment of the account upon Mrs. Dyess' order and check.' (Emphasis added). In Adams v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 258 S.W.2d 401, 402, n. w. h., the court 'In Pruett v. Bank this Court held that the Bank was not liable for paying to the order of the surviv......