Blick v. Cockins

• Citation: 97 A. 125,252 Pa. 56
• Decision Date: 03 January 1916
• Docket Number: 228
• Parties: Blick, Appellant, v. Cockins
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

97 A. 125

252 Pa. 56

Blick, Appellant, v. Cockins

No. 228

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 3, 1916

Argued October 19, 1915

Appeal, No. 228, Oct. T., 1915, by plaintiff, from decree of C.P. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1909, No. 1139, in case of Adelaide Blick and Horace J. Miller v. James M. Cockins. Affirmed.

Bill in equity to declare a trust ex maleficio.

From the record it appeared that Marianna M. Cockins, wife of the appellee died on March 6, 1907, domiciled in the State of Maryland, where the principal administration of her estate was had. After her estate had been settled in that state, her husband, James M. Cockins, was declared in this State to be a trustee ex maleficio of her estate, in Blick v Cockins, 234 Pa. 261, and The Commonwealth Trust Company of Pittsburgh was appointed trustee thereof. Sequestration proceedings were instituted in order to compel the appellee to turn over the assets of his wife's estate to the trust company, and exceptions were filed by the plaintiffs to defendant's petition for discharge from said proceedings on the ground that the entire estate had not as yet been turned over to the trustee. The lower court discharged the defendant from the writ of attachment and writ of sequestration so far as the accumulation of income was concerned on the ground that defendant was endeavoring in good faith to comply with the decree and was not in contempt which order was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Blick v. Cockins, 247 Pa. 186. The case was then brought before the lower court for hearing on the exceptions involving the title to certain property.

Further facts appear in the following opinion by SHAFER, P.J.:

The parties have agreed as to most of the property in possession of James M. Cockins. An order has been made in relation to it, reserving certain matters as to which they were not agreed. By further agreement between the parties the matters in controversy have been reduced to the following items: The ownership of five bonds, of balance in two banks, of certain jewelry, of a lot in California, and of the interest on mortgages collected by Cockins as executor of his wife, part of which was earned before her death. From the evidence taken, we find the facts in regard to the ownership of these items to be as follows:

(1) The bank balances in question were balances of accounts with "J. M. Cockins and Marianna M. Cockins, subject to the order of either or survivor." Moneys were deposited in these accounts by each of them, most of it perhaps by the wife. We are of opinion, however, that this makes no difference, and even if all by the wife it would now belong to the survivor. She had a right had she chosen to do so, to give property over to herself and husband as joint owners, and the deposit of it in this way had that effect. We find, therefore, that these deposits belong to James M. Cockins.

(2) Four of the bonds in question, namely, two bonds for $1,000.00 each of the City and Suburban Railroad, and two of the Wilmington and Weldon Railroad Company for $1,000.00 were purchased by moneys drawn out by the parties from the accounts above stated, and were intended to be...