Beaver v. Beaver

• Decision Date: 26 November 1889
• Parties: BEAVER v. BEAVER et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

117 N.Y. 421

22 N.E. 940

BEAVER

v.BEAVER et al.¹

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 26, 1889.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, third department.

The action was commenced by the plaintiff, as executrix of Asiel G. Beaver, against the Ulster County Saving Institution, to recover certain deposits amounting to the sum of $2,800 or thereabouts, standing to his credit on the books of the bank. The administrators of John O. Beaver claiming the money as part of his estate, they were substituted as defendants in place of the bank, the money having been brought into court. The question litigated was whether the money represented by the deposits and the accumulations had been vested in Asiel G. Beaver, as a gift from John O. Beaver. The account with the bank consisted of two deposits,-one July 5, 1866, of $854.04, and one of October 5, 1866, of $145.96,-making in the aggregate $1,000, and the accumulations thereon. It is undisputed that the deposit of $854.04 was made in person by John O. Beaver, and that the money deposited belonged to him. The only evidence to sustain the claim that it was given by him to Asiel G. Beaver is found in the relations between them and the circumstances attending the deposit. Asiel G. Beaver was the son of John O. Beaver, and in 1866 was 17 years of age, and resided with his father, as one of a family of 13 children. John O. Beaver made the deposit of July 5, 1866, in the name of Asiel. The rules of the bank required that on making the first deposit the depositor should subscribe a declaration of his assent to the by-laws of the institution, and his promise to abide by them. John O. Beaver, at the date of the first deposit, signed in his own name a declaration presented to him by the treasurer of the bank, commencing with the words: ‘I, Asiel G. Beaver, of Esopus, Ulster county, hereby request the officers of the Ulster County Savings Institution to receive from me $854, and open an account with me,’ etc. At the same time the savings bank entered on its books an account beginning, ‘Dr., Ulster County Savings Bank, in account with Asiel Beaver,’ and crediting said Asiel with the deposit of $854. Under the name of Asiel Beaver were originally written the works, ‘Payable to John O. Beaver.’ The bank also at the same time issued and delivered to John O. Beaver a pass-book, with a similar entry as in the account on the books of the bank, containing also, as originally written, the words, ‘Payable to John O. Beaver.’ These words in the account and in the pass-book were in the handwriting of the treasurer of the bank, and were written at the same time and by the same hand as the other part of the entries. But before the delivery of the pass-book the words ‘Payable to John O. Beaver’ were erased therefrom, and the same erasure was made in the account on the bank-books. How the interlineation came to be made in the first instance does not appear, nor does it appear at whose suggestion or under what circumstances the erasures were made. Subsequently, on October 5, 1866, another deposit of $145.96 was made to the account, and credited on the pass-book.

There are no facts, except as above stated, tending to show a gift of the money deposited to Asiel. On the other hand, many circumstances were shown which are claimed to be inconsistent with a gift by the father to the son of the money deposited. The son married a few years after the deposit was made, and died in 1886, 20 years after the date of the deposits, being then of the age of 37 years, leaving a wife, but no children, surviving. John O. Beaver, the father, died in 1888. The father retained possession of the pass-book at all times until his death. In April, 1867, he drew $27.29 from the account, and signed a receipt therefor in the pass-book in his own name. No other sum was ever drawn from the account. From time to time John O. Beaver presented the pass-book to the bank to have the interest credited, and the bank officers had no dealings with any other person in respect to the account. There is no evidence that Asiel G. Beaver ever had the pass-book in his possession, or knew of the deposits. In May, 1870, Asiel opened an individual account at the bank in his own name, which continued until March, 1886, when he drew out $1,818.56, in full of the account. It appears that John O. Beaver had eight or nine pass-books in the bank, representing deposits made in the names of other persons. He left at his death real estate of the value of $12,000 to $15,000, and more than $20,000 in personal property. One of the rules of the bank provides that ‘drafts may be made personally, or by the order in writing of the depositor, (if the institution have the signature of the party,) or by letters of attorney, duly authenticated, but no person shall have the right to demand any part of his principal or interest without producing the original book, that such payment may be entered thereon,’ and another declares that, ‘although the institution will endeavor to prevent fraud or impositions, yet all payments to persons presenting the pass-books issued by it shall be valid payments to discharge the institution.’ The rules were printed on the pass-books of the bank.

DANFORTH, J., dissenting.

A. T. Clearwater, for appellants.

F. L. Westbrook, for respondent.

ANDREWS, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

It is found that the money with which John O. Beaver made the deposit of $854.04, July 5, 1866, belonged to him. The inference that the deposit of $145.96, made October 5, 1866, was also made by him, from his own means, does not admit of reasonable question. The pass-book was at all times in his possession. Concurrently with the last deposit the amount was entered therein. It is affirmatively shown that Asiel, who was then a minor, lived with his father, and had no money of his own, and the circumstances are quite satisfactory to show that he never at any time during his life knew of the bank account. The question in the case turns upon the legal effect of the deposit, made in connection with the attendant and subsequent circumstances. If they established either a trust in favor of Asiel as to the $854.04, deposited July 5, 1866, or a gift of the fund deposited, then, clearly, the subsequent deposit would, in the absence of explanation, be impressed with the same character, and be governed by the same rules. On the other hand, if the first deposit was not affected with any trust, and was not a gift, neither is the last one. Both were the property of John O. Beaver, or both the property of the son, either by a beneficial or legal title. The trial court seem to have sustained the transaction as a gift, but at the same time refused to find that there was no trust.

There is no warrant, under the decisions of this court, to uphold the deposit of July 5, 1866, as a trust. The case of Martin v. Funk, 75 N. Y. 134, established a trust in favor of the claimant in that case, in respect to a fund deposited by another in a savings bank to his own credit, in trust for the former; the latter taking from the bank at the time a pass-book in which the account was entered in the same way. The court applied the doctrine that the owner of a fund may, by an unequivocal declaration of trust, impress it with a trust character, and thereby convert his absolute legal title into a title as trustee for the person in whose favor the trust is declared. There was no declaration of trust in this case, in terms, when the deposit of July 5, 1866, was made, nor at any time afterwards, and none can be implied from a mere deposit by one person in the name of another. To constitute a trust there must be either an explicit declaration of trust, or circumstances which show beyond reasonable doubt that a trust was intended to be created. It would introduce a dangerous instability of titles if anything less was required, or if a voluntary trust inter vivos could be established in the absence of express words, by circumstances capable of another construction, or consistent with a different intention. See Young v. Young, 80 N. Y. 438, and cases cited.

The plaintiff's title to the fund must depend, therefore, upon the question of gift. The elements necessary to constitute a valid gift are well understood, and are not the subject of dispute. There must be on the part of the donor an intent to give, and a delivery of the thing given, to or for the donee, in pursuance of such intent, and on the part of the donee acceptance. The subject of the gift may be chattels, choses in action, or any form of personal property, and what constitutes a delivery may depend on the nature and situation of...