Albro v. Albro

• Decision Date: 11 December 1901
• Citation: 65 S.W. 592
• Parties: ALBRO v. ALBRO et al. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

65 S.W. 592

ALBRO v. ALBRO et al. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 11, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Kenton county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Margaret F. Albro, administratrix of Telford R. Albro against H. H. Albro and another, for a settlement of the accounts of plaintiff as administratrix. Judgment denying plaintiff's claim to certain money as a gift from her intestate, and she appeals. Affirmed.

F. M Tracey and Guy W. Mallon, for appellant.

Raymond C. Gray, for appellees.

HOBSON J.

Telford R. Albro died on November 29, 1899, intestate, leaving surviving him his widow, Margaret F. Albro, who subsequently qualified as administratrix of his estate, and filed this suit for the settlement of her accounts. She alleged that on November 27th, or two days before his death, the decedent her husband, handed her his bank pass book and told her that it was hers; that all his property was to be hers. He had in the bank at the time $934.22. It was not a savings bank, but a bank of deposit, organized under the national banking act. Appellees denied the gift, and also alleged that the intestate at the time was incompetent to transact business. The trial court held, under the evidence, that the gift was not made; that the intestate was at the time not of sound and disposing mind.

It is insisted for appellant that the delivery of the pass book was sufficient to pass the title to the fund, under Stephenson's Adm'r v. King, 81 Ky. 425, 50 Am.Rep. 173. Appellees, however, insist on the contrary, and rely upon Ashbrook v. Ryon's Adm'r, 2 Bush, 228, 92 Am.Dec. 481; Headley v. Kirby, 18 Pa. 326; 3 Redf. Wills, 344; Duncan's Adm'r v. Duncan, 5 Litt. 12; Jones v. Weakley, 99 Ala. 442, 12 So 420, 19 L.R.A. 700, 42 Am.St.Rep. 84; Walsh's Appeal. 122 Pa. 177, 15 A. 470, 1 L.R.A. 535, 9 Am.St.Rep. 83. See, also 14 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) p. 1030, and cases cited. It is unnecessary for us to determine the question of law raised, unless we reverse the chancellor on the facts. This we cannot do. Some weight must be given to his finding, and it will not be disturbed where on the whole case the mind is left in doubt as to the truth. Our statutes allow all persons to make wills. They provide how the estate of persons who die intestate shall descend. Gifts causa mortis are against the policy of the law, and defeat its purposes. They are upheld only on the ground that the property passed out of the intestate to the donee before his death, and that he did not die the owner of it. They are always made when the donor is in anticipation...