Ariett v. The Osage County Bank
Decision Date | 06 February 1926 |
Docket Number | 26,468 |
Parties | ALLIE ARIETT, Administratrix of the Estate of DOMINICO ARIETT, Deceased, Appellant, v. THE OSAGE COUNTY BANK, VICTOR CHIRI, a Minor, and J. E. JONES, as Guardian, etc., Appellees |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1926.
Appeal from Osage district court; ROBERT C. HEIZER, judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
GIFT--Inter Vivos--Delivery--Necessity and Sufficiency. The proceedings considered in an action to determine ownership of liberty bonds, and held, a gift inter vivos was not established.
Ralph T. O'Neil, J. D. M. Hamilton and Barton E. Griffith, all of Topeka, for the appellant.
A. K Stavely, of Lyndon, and Charles S. Briggs, of Topeka, for the appellees.
The appeal was taken from a judgment of the district court holding that certain transactions effected a gift inter vivos of liberty bonds.
At the time of his death on October 28, 1919, Dominico Ariett had registered liberty bonds to the amount of $ 2,500 at the Osage County Bank. After his death his administratrix brought suit to obtain possession of the bonds. The bank answered it had no interest in the bonds, and was ready to deliver them as the court might direct. Victor Chiri, minor son of Bertha Chiri, now Bertha Romersa, was made a party to the action, and claimed the bonds. The court returned the following finding of fact:
The court further found that, on April 12, 1919, Ariett went to the bank and executed and acknowledged assignments of the bonds to Victor; the assignments were indorsed on the bonds, and authorized transfer on the books of the treasury department; after execution of the assignments, the bonds were left with an officer of the bank, and they were kept with the papers of the bank, and not in any private box of Ariett in the bank. The conclusion of law was, Ariett made a gift of the bonds to Victor Chiri, and title passed on April 12, 1919, subject only to Ariett's use and benefit of the bonds during his lifetime. Plaintiff requested the court to find certain facts not included in the finding returned, and challenged correctness of the court's findings. The court's findings are not quite correct, are not quite complete, and do not state just what occurred in the manner it occurred. There is no conflict in the evidence relating to the controlling facts, which may be stated as follows:
In October, 1918, Ariett had a conversation with Victor's mother, in which he said they had been after him to buy liberty bonds; he had some money he had collected, and would put it in liberty bonds; he would buy them so he would get the interest as long as he lived, and when he died they would go to the boy, so if the boy wanted an education he would have the money. A week or two subsequent to this conversation, Ariett and Victor's mother were in Osage City, and Ariett asked her to go to the bank with him; he was going to buy liberty bonds, and he wanted her to go along to spell the name correctly. They went to the Osage County Bank, and had a conversation with its vice president, Womer, with whom Ariett had done business for many years. Victor's mother states part of what occurred as follows:
The bank had unregistered coupon bonds for sale. Ariett had $ 2,500 in currency with him. He gave the money to Womer, and received a "duplicate slip," which Victor's mother said was a "receipt until the bonds came." Womer took out of the bank's bond box three coupon bonds amounting to $ 2,500, and sent them to Washington to be exchanged for registered bonds. Ariett said he wanted them registered in his own name, and they were registered in his name, the same as any purchaser would have a bond registered. Womer's recollection of details of the transaction was indistinct, because it occurred so long before the trial. He recalled the bonds were to be registered in the name of Dominico Ariett, so he would have the right to the interest earned during his lifetime, but did not recall that they were to be assigned to Victor, or were to be given to any one at Ariett's death. Ariett was to be notified when the registered bonds arrived, and he was notified by letter that the bank had received them.
The bank kept a bond account, and on January 7, 1919, the cashier signed Ariett's name to a check for $ 2,500, and made the proper bookkeeping notations. The cashier testified he delivered the bonds to Ariett, but he said his only recollection bearing on delivery was the check he signed marked "Dominico Ariett, registered bonds, $ 2,500," and the custom of the bank to turn over bonds to customers. No conversation about the bonds occurred at that time, and the evidence does not show whether Ariett took them away with him.
Probably eighty per cent of the customers of the bank left their bonds at the bank for safe-keeping. The bank had a customers' bond box, which was kept in the bank's safe, and customers' bonds were kept in the box. Such bonds were covered by burglary insurance, and no one had access to them except persons in the bank. A customer owning bonds and desiring to take them for any purpose, applied to some one in the bank, who got them for the customer. Ariett had no safety deposit box of his own in the bank, and if the bonds he purchased were in the bank from January 7 to April 12, 1919, they were in the customers' bond box.
On April 12 Ariett went to the bank, and said he wanted to assign the bonds, and he wanted it fixed so he would have the interest on them during his lifetime. There is no evidence Ariett brought the bonds into the bank with him. The cashier told him he could make an assignment and retain the bonds, and not record the assignment, and as long as the assignment was not recorded at Washington, the interest checks would come to him, and the treasury department would have no knowledge of the transfer. The assignment was made in that way, in response to Ariett's request. The cashier's testimony is the only testimony regarding what occurred when the assignment was made. In addition to what has been stated, he testified as follows:
Direct Examination:
Cross-examination:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cartall v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
... ... 242; Wiseman v. Swain, 114 ... S.W. 145; Second Natl. Bank v. Ford, 123 S.W.2d 867; ... Colburn v. Broughton, 9 Ala. 351; ... 31; Daudt v. Steiert, 205 ... S.W. 222; Lea v. Polk County Copper Co., 21 How ... 493, 16 L.Ed. 203; Makinson v. Shumick, 196 ... 608; Moore v ... Lawton, 147 Md. 244, 127 A. 756; Ariett v. Osage ... County Bank, 120 Kan. 286, 242 P. 1018; Elliot v ... ...
-
Hudson v. Tucker
...267; 38 C.J.S. Gifts § 53, p. 838; 24 Am.Jur., Gifts, § 70, p. 766; 47 A.L.R. 738 (transfer of insurance policies); Ariett v. Osage County Bank, 120 Kan. 286, 242 P. 1018; Grant Trust & Savings Co. v. Tucker, 49 Ind.App. 345, 96 N.E. 487; Moore v. Brodrick, D.C., 123 F.Supp. 108; and Union ......
-
Schultz v. United Telephone Co.
... ... Appeal ... from District Court, Saline County; Dallas Grover, Judge ... Action ... by Carrie Schultz against ... a safety deposit box in the Farmers' National Bank in ... Salina. Elizabeth said that was a good place for it, and that ... daughter's possession, satisfied the rule applied in ... Ariett v. Osage County Bank, 120 Kan. 286, 242 P ... [3 P.2d 510.] ... and ... ...
-
Pace v. First National Bank of Osawatomie, Kansas
...and unconditional, vesting title immediately and permanently in such donee. See Hall v. Hall, 76 Kan. 806, 93 P. 177; Ariett v. Osage County Bank, 120 Kan. 286, 242 P. 1018; Saxon v. Linscott, 123 Kan. 374, 255 P. Again, the best proof of the lack of a valid gift of any type—causa mortis or......