Baker v. Hedrich
| Decision Date | 30 April 1897 |
| Parties | BAKER v. HEDRICH. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Anne Arundel county, in equity.
Bill by Laura A. M. Baker, administratrix of Henry Hedrich, against Anna Hedrich. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and BRYAN, FOWLER, BRISCOE, PAGE ROBERTS, and BOYD, JJ.
James M. Munroe and Frank H. Stockett, Jr., for appellant.
J. Wirt Randall and James R. Brashears, for appellee.
The bill of complaint in this case was filed by the appellant against the appellee to recover certain cash, United States bonds, a certificate of Baltimore city stock, and deposits in the Eutaw Savings Bank and the Savings Bank of Baltimore. The court below decided in favor of the appellee as to all the items, and dismissed the bill. The appellant, after taking an appeal, filed an agreement, wherein it is stated that the appeal was not intended to apply to the portion of the decree which adjudged the United States bonds to be the property of the appellee, and has made no claim for them in this court. Nor do we understand her solicitors to contend that the claim for the cash has been established. So far as there seems to be any room for controversy, it is reduced to the question as to whether the titles to the Baltimore city stock and the amounts in the savings banks were in Henry Hedrich, the appellant's intestate, or in the appellee who is his widow. The certificate of the Baltimore city stock stands in the name of "Henry Hedrich, or Anna Hedrich." The form of entry in the book of the Savings Bank of Baltimore is, "Henry Hedrich and his wife, Anna Hedrich, subject to the order of either or the survivor;" and in the book of the Eutaw Savings Bank "Henry Hedrich, Anna Hedrich, and the survivor of them, subject to the order of either."
From the view we take of the case, it would serve no useful purpose to discuss what is necessary to make a gift inter vivos or a donatio causa mortis, as that could only become material in the event that we found this property originally belonged to Henry Hedrich, and not to his wife. The cases in this court involving the title to deposits in savings banks are quite numerous, and, while there is no conflict between them, the results reached in them have necessarily differed, as the facts in the respective cases presented different questions. For example, in Murray v. Cannon, 41 Md. 466, the deposit was to the credit of "James Cannon, subject to his order, or to the order of Mary E. Cannon," who was his daughter. It was held that the money belonged to James Cannon, and his daughter only had the power as his agent to draw it out of the bank. At his death the agency ceased, and, as the proof in the case was not sufficient to establish a perfected gift of the money, it did not pass to the daughter. The case of Gardner v. Merritt, 32 Md. 78, was relied on as conclusively disposing of the principal question in the case. There Susanna A. Merritt, the grandmother of the appellants, deposited sundry sums of money in the Savings Bank of Baltimore to their credit, in accounts opened in the name of each of them, as a minor, "subject to the order of Susanna A. Merritt on Susanna Merritt." Susanna was the daughter of Susanna A. Merritt, and, after the death of the latter, withdrew all the money from the bank, and claimed it as belonging to the estate of her mother. The evidence showed that the deposits were made for the benefit of the grandchildren, as Mrs. Merritt herself had stated, and the provision that they were subject to the order of the grandmother and her daughter was in accordance with the by-laws of the bank. This court held that the moneys thus deposited were perfected gifts, and belonged to the grandchildren. In Taylor v. Henry, 48 Md. 550, the appellees' intestate made a deposit in the Eutaw Savings Bank of Baltimore of $1,850, as he was about to take a trip for the benefit of his health. The account was opened and the money credited to Joseph Henry and Mary Henry, his mother, and the survivor of them, subject to the order of either. Some time afterwards Henry changed the account so as to read, "Joseph Henry, Margaret Taylor, and the survivor of them, subject to the order of either." This court said that "the whole question depends upon the meaning and intention of the deceased in making the deposit in the form adopted, as gathered from the entry in the bank book and all the circumstances surrounding the deceased at the time," and held that the words "and the survivor of them," when taken in connection with those which precede and those which follow in the entry, did not import a gift inter vivos or a gift causa mortis. In Doughterty v. Moore, 71 Md. 248, 18 A. 35, the account was originally opened in the name of the husband in 1864, and so continued until
February 1868, when the name of his wife was added, and an entry made, "Lawrence McDonald, Sarah McDonald, and the survivor, subject to the order of either." McDonald continued to make deposits and to draw on the account as he saw proper. It was held that it was not a gift inter vivos. In Bank v. Murphy, 82 Md. 314, 33 A. 640, the account was originally in the name of the husband, but was in 1885 changed to himself and wife, and was ...
To continue reading
Request your trial