Burbank v. Stevens
| Decision Date | 28 January 1926 |
| Citation | 131 A. 742,104 Conn. 17 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Burbank v. STEVENS. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; John W. Banks, Judge.
Action by Joseph H. Burbank against John H. Stevens, administrator to recover damages for conversion. Judgment for Henry J Burbank, administrator of the named plaintiff, who had been substituted as plaintiff on death of plaintiff pending suit and defendant appeals. No error.
The complaint in this action contained three counts; the first alleging performance of services by Burbank and a promise by decedent to pay for the same by will. The second and third are concerned with an alleged gift by the decedent, while alive, to Burbank of a certain bank book and the sum due thereon, and a conversion of the latter by defendant. It appears from the memorandum of decision that the court found for the defendant upon the first count, and for the plaintiff upon the other counts, although the judgment file states a judgment for plaintiff generally. The second and third counts allege a conversion by defendant of the bank book and the proceeds therefrom, and a holding of the same as part of the estate of the deceased. These allegations, with others, were put in issue by the answer, and, as appears by the judgment file, were found in favor of the plaintiff.
The trial court found that the defendant's intestate, Mary E Stevens, was the owner of a farm at Durham, Conn., for more than 20 years next preceding her death, which occurred April 19, 1923, on which farm for at least 20 years prior to her death Joseph H. Burbank had worked for her. He was the only one to live on the premises with her during the 20 years. She was a woman of more than 65 years of age, and he was also advanced in years. At the time of her death she was not indebted to him in any amount. A week before her death she delivered to Catherine Powers her bank book on the Central National Bank of Middletown, Conn., in which she then had a deposit in the savings department of $952.64, and at the same time she also signed an order upon the bank, written upon the regular order blank form of the bank, in favor of the plaintiff for the entire account of $952.64, which she also delivered to Mrs. Powers, with instructions to deliver both the bank book and order to the plaintiff upon her death. Mrs Powers delivered the bank book and order to Burbank on the day after Miss Stevens died, and he placed the same in a desk in the home of Miss Stevens.
John H. Stevens, brother of Miss Stevens, found the book in the drawer, and took it into his possession. At the time he did this John H. Stevens was not the administrator of the estate of Miss Stevens, and was acting in no official capacity in taking custody of the book. Burbank made demand upon Stevens for the return of the book to him, but he refused to return it. Burbank did not know of the existence of the order until after the death of Miss Stevens, nor was the existence of the order communicated in any way to the bank or to its officials until after her death.
The rules and regulations of the savings department of the Central National Bank, in effect at the time of the death of Miss Stevens, provided for the withdrawal of deposits on presentation of the bank book and on order filled out in accordance with a form outlined in the bank deposit books of the bank. Miss Stevens delivered the bank book and the order to Mrs. Powers as trustee for the plaintiff with intent to make an immediate and unconditional gift to him of the amount on deposit to become effective upon her death. The plaintiff presented his claim against the estate of Mary E. Stevens, and the same was disallowed. She died, leaving estate other than the bank book in question.
The court reached the following conclusions: (1) The delivery of the bank book and order constituted a valid gift inter vivos of the amount on deposit by Miss Stevens to the plaintiff. (2) Plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of $1,071.72.
The appellant claimed upon the trial that there was no valid gift inter vivos of the bank book, which claim the court overruled, and rendered judgment as on file.
Further facts appear in the opinion.
Defendant moved to correct the finding of the trial court by striking out seven paragraphs of the same, and by adding one paragraph from his draft finding. From the refusal of the trial court so to correct the finding defendant appeals, and also from the finding by the trial court that Miss Stevens made a valid gift of the amount evidenced by the bank book to Burbank, and also because of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wasniewski v. Quick and Reilly, Inc.
...supra, 137 Conn. at 534, 79 A.2d 181; Parley v. Parley, 72 Conn.App. 742, 749, 807 A.2d 982 (2002); see also Burbank v. Stevens, 104 Conn. 17, 22, 131 A. 742 (1926). In other words, a valid inter vivos gift of personal property requires both delivery of possession of the property to the don......
-
Cramer v. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co.
...Bank, 81 Conn. 372, 71 A. 551, 22 L.R.A. (N. S.) 568; Blodgett v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 97 Conn. 405, 116 A. 908; Burbank v. Stevens, 104 Conn. 17, 22, 131 A. 742; Bromley v. Mitchell, 155 Mass. 509, 511, 30 N.E. Kelley v. Snow, 185 Mass. 288, 70 N.E. 89; Lewis v. Curnutt, 130 Iowa, ......
-
Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank v. Howell
... ... 372, 71 A. 551, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) ... 568; Blodgett v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 97 ... Conn. 405, 116 A. 908; Burbank v. Stevens, 104 Conn ... 17, 22, 131 A. 742; Bromley v. Mitchell, 155 Mass ... 509, 511, 30 N.E. 83; Kelley v. Snow, 185 Mass. 288, ... 70 ... ...
-
Linahan v. Linahan
...p. 201. The principle is the same as that which governs in the case of gifts and we have held this to be so as to them. Burbank v. Stevens, 104 Conn. 17, 22, 131 A. 742. The mortgage notes included in the agreement are all described in substantially the same way, of which this is an example......