Attorney Gen. ex rel. Treasurer & Receiver Gen. v. Clark

• Decision Date: 29 November 1915
• Citation: 222 Mass. 291,110 N.E. 299
• Parties: ATTORNEY GENERAL ex rel. TREASURER AND RECEIVER GENERAL v. CLARK.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

222 Mass. 291

110 N.E. 299

ATTORNEY GENERAL ex rel. TREASURER AND RECEIVER GENERAL

v.CLARK.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Nov. 29, 1915.

Case Reserved from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.

Information in equity by the Attorney General, on the relation of the Treasurer and Receiver General, against Mary M. Clark, executrix. Before the Supreme Judicial Court on reservation by a single justice. Information dismissed.

Henry C. Attwill, Atty. Gen., and Wm. Harold Hitchcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Attorney General.

Geo. P. Drury, of Boston, for respondent.

CROSBY, J.

This is an information in equity brought in this court at the relation of the Treasurer and Receiver General under St. 1909, c. 490, pt. IV, as amended by St. 1912, c. 678, § 1, to recover a succession tax. The case comes before us on a reservation made by a single justice, which contains the agreed facts and certain stipulations made by the parties.

The record shows the following facts: That Elizabeth M. Clark, the deceased, and Mary M. Clark, the respondent, were sisters living together in Waltham in this commonwealth on the real estate hereinafter referred to; that these sisters, being tenants in common of the real estate so occupied by them, obtained title thereto by inheritance, and also by deed from a third heir; that on November 11, 1907, they conveyed the real estate to a third person, and on the same day their grantee reconveyed the estate to them as joint tenants; that at different times since November 11, 1907, these sisters purchased with funds, of which each of them contributed one-half, certain securities consisting of stocks and bonds which were all issued to them as joint tenants. These securities were kept in their joint possession until the death of Elizabeth, since which time such possession has continued in Mary, the survivor. It is also agreed that on or about January 2, 1908, these sisters opened two accounts in the Springfield Institution for Savings, one in the name of ‘either Elizabeth M. Clark or Mary M. Clark or the survivor of either,’ and the other in the name of ‘either Mary M. Clark or Elizabeth M. Clark or the survivor of either.’ Each of them contributed one-half of the total amounts so deposited, and there were no withdrawals ‘unless for their joint benefit.’ The total balance of these two deposits on September 10, 1912, the date of the death of Elizabeth M. Clark, was $1,623.56. The value of the real estate, securities and deposits having been agreed upon by the parties, it is the contention of the Attorney General that one-half of the total amount of such value became taxable upon the decease of Elizabeth M. Clark, one of the joint owners.

[1] 1. There can be no doubt that after the transfer of the real estate and the issuance of the securities to these sisters in the manner above described, they thereafter held and owned such real and personal estate as joint tenants will all the incidents which govern such a tenure, including that of survivorship; and we think that the same is true as to the deposits in the savings banks. The words of survivorship employed when the deposits were made and thereafter were held by the bank were apt and sufficient to create a joint tenancy, and such obviously was the intention of the parties, especially when considered in connection with the estate in joint tenancy created by them in the real estate and the securities. The record shows that no withdrawals were made unless for their joint benefit, and it fairly may be inferred from all the facts and attendant circumstances that it was agreed between the sisters that neither of them should withdraw any of the deposits except upon their joint account and for their mutual use and benefit. Nor is this conclusion affected by the fact that either might have withdrawn the deposits contrary to such an agreement and thereby have destroyed the joint tenancy. A joint tenant, as an incident of his tenure, always may terminate the joint tenancy by transfer or conveyance of his interest. A joint tenancy is not confined to real estate, but may exist also in personal property. Phelps v. Simons, 159 Mass. 415, 34 N. E. 657,38 Am. St. Rep. 430;Boland v. McKowen, 189 Mass. 563, 76 N. E. 206,109 Am. St. Rep. 663.

2. The record shows that these two sisters intended to create an estate in joint tenancy both as to the real and the personal estate. They were equal owners in the real estate when their holdings therein were changed from that of tenants in common to joint...