Castle v. Wightman
| Decision Date | 15 April 1939 |
| Citation | 20 N.E.2d 436,303 Mass. 74 |
| Parties | CASTLE v. WIGHTMAN et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Equity suit by Charles A. Castle, executor of the will of Alice A. Prior, deceased, for instruction unto whom a joint account was payable. From a decree in favor of Alice A. Wightman, Julia Annette Wightman and others, residuary legatees, appeal.
Affirmed.Appeal from Probate Court, Middlesex County; Leggat, Judge.
E. W. Hadley, of Boston, for respondents Benson and others.
W. F. Rideout, of Boston, for Alice A. Wightman.
This is a petition in equity wherein the petitioner, as he is executor of the will og Alice A. Prior, late of Malden, deceased, prays to be instructed to whom ‘a joint account’ in the Malden Co-operative Bank standing in the name of the deceased ‘and/or Alice Wightman’ ‘is payable.’ After hearing the judge entered a decree that ‘the account represented by said pass book is the property of said Alice A. Wightman.’ The latter is the Alice Wightman before referred to. The case comes before us on the appeal of certain residuary legatees under the will of Alice A. Prior, who will be referred to hereinafter as the deceased.
The evidence is not reported but at the request of the appellants the judge filed a report of the material facts found by him, from which the following facts appear: The ‘pass book’ in question was found by the petitioner among the effects of the deceased. On September 30, 1936, the deceased purchased from the Malden Co-operative Bank forty shares ‘of its stock.’ The deceased procured from the bank the ‘signature identification card required by the Bank,’ signed it and sent it to Alice A. Wightman, who then lived in New Hampshire, for her signature. The latter signed the card ‘late in October’ and returned it to the deceased. Thus completed the card contained the following: ‘Name Alice A. Prior Number 18816 Address Malden Contagious Hospital Name Alice A. Wightman Address Drewsville, New Hampshire Hereby assenting to the By Laws of the Malden Co-operative Bank, and the rules and regulations of its board of directors, those now in force or which may hereafter be adopted, it is understood and agreed that this account is to be a joint account, and in the event of the death of either of us the Bank shall be liable thereon only to the Survivor and while we both are living payments to either of us shall discharge liability to both.’ The deceased delivered the card to the bank, which thereupon issued ‘the book’ and delivered it to the deceased, who retained it in her possession until her death. Alice A. Wightman never saw the book ‘or had possession of it,’ and made no payments ‘into the account.’ The original payment and all payments made on account of the shares were made by the deceased, and the respondent Wightman never saw or communicated with the bank or its officers prior to the filing of the petition now before us. At some time previous to the purchase of the shares the deceased said or wrote to the respondent Wightman concerning money spent by the latter for her education ‘that she * * * would take care of * * * [her].’
The evidence not being reported and the report of material facts having been made under the provisions of G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 215, § 11, the only question is whether the decree entered is supported by the facts found. ‘Such a report is to be regarded as a finding of all the material facts on which * * * [the] decision was founded.’ Topor v. Topor, 287 Mass. 473, 476, 192 N.E. 52, 53;Goldston v. Randolph, Mass., 199 N.E. 896, 103 A.L.R. 1117. See, also, Birnbaum v. Pamoukis, Mass., 17 N.E.2d 885.
The principles governing the determination of title to so-called joint accounts have been considered in many previous decisions of this court. It would serve no useful purpose to review them in detail. The governing principles have been stated with ample citation of authority in the case of Goldston v. Randolph, Mass., 199 N.E. 896, 103 A.L.R. 1117. It must be taken to be established that the deceased could legally purchase the shares in joint ownership with the respondent Wightman if she clearly intended that result, and that a present gift could be made even though the deceased retained the pass book, which was representative of the joint ownership. Goldston v. Randolph, Mass., 199 N.E. 896, 103 A.L.R. 1117, and cases cited. A present gift, not of the shares themselves but of the the interest created therein by the contract with the bank, would be effected without delivery of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blanchette v. Blanchette
...accounts. Graham v. Barnes, 259 Mass. 534, 538, 156 N.E. 865; Barnes v. Chandler, 277 Mass. 395, 398, 178 N.E. 735; Castle v. Wightman, 303 Mass. 74, 77--78, 20 N.E.2d 436; Berry v. Kyes, 304 Mass. 56, 61--62, 22 N.E.2d 622; MacLennan v. MacLennan, 316 Mass. 593, 597, 55 N.E.2d 928; Zambuno......
-
Desrosiers v. Germain
...account since the usual requirement of delivery when consummating a gift is replaced by the contract with the bank. Castle v. Wightman, 303 Mass. 74, 76, 20 N.E.2d 436 (1939). Sullivan v. Hudgins, 303 Mass. 442, 444, 22 N.E.2d 43 (1939). Kittredge v. Manning, 317 Mass. 689, 692-693, 59 N.E.......
-
Cziger v. Bernstein
...221 Ind. 306, 47 N.E.2d 614 (Sup.Ct.1943); Ogle v. Barker, 224 Ind. 489, 68 N.E.2d 550, 556 (Sup.Ct.1946); Castle v. Wightman, 303 Mass. 74, 20 N.E.2d 436 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1939); Battles v. Millbury Savings Bank, 250 Mass. 180, 145 N.E. 55, 56 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1924); Beach v. Holland, 172 Or. 396, 14......
-
Kittredge v. Manning
...the evidence is not reported, the sole issue is whether the decision of the judge is supported by the facts found. Castle v. Wightman, 303 Mass. 74, 76, 20 N.E.2d 436;Colby v. Callahan, 311 Mass. 727, 728, 42 N.E.2d 801. The petitioner contends that the facts found by the judge do not suppo......