Cleveland v. Springfield Inst. For Sav.

• Decision Date: 29 October 1902
• Citation: 65 N.E. 27,182 Mass. 110
• Parties: CLEVELAND v. SPRINGFIELD INST. FOR SAV. et al. SAME v. HAMPDEN SAV. BANK et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

182 Mass. 110

65 N.E. 27

CLEVELAND

v.SPRINGFIELD INST. FOR SAV. et al.

SAME

v.HAMPDEN SAV. BANK et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampshire.

Oct. 29, 1902.

Report from superior court, Hampshire county; John A. Aiken, Judge.

Bills to establish a trust by Abby Cleveland against the Springfield Institution for Savings and another and against the Hampden Savings Bank and another. Bills dismissed, and cases reported. Decrees affirmed.

Hammond & Field, H. M. Coney, and Edward T. Esty, for plaintiff.

J. B. Carroll and W. H. McClintock, for defendant Gardner.

HOLMES, C. J.

These are bills to establish a trust in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the funds represented by three savings bank books. The judge before whom the case was tried dismissed the bills and made a report. We assume that this report is properly before us although made after the decrees. Rev. Laws, c. 159, § 23; Pratt v. McGuinness, 173 Mass. 170, 53 N. E. 380;City of Worcester v. Lakeside Mfg. Co., 174 Mass. 299, 54 N. E. 833. But it does not purport to be a report of the evidence or to set it all forth. It merely states certain facts and the general finding of the judge against the bills. The only question before us is whether the specific facts stated are necessarily inconsistent with the general conclusion reached.

The facts mainly relied upon by the plaintiff are that the deposit in the Hampden Savings Bank, ($200, January 1, 1892), was entered on a book headed ‘Sarah Davis in trust for Abbie V. Cleveland,’ and that those in the Springfield Institution for Savings were on the books headed respectively ‘Sarah Davis in trust for Abbie E. Cleveland,’ ($1,000, January 1, 1892,) and ‘Sarah Davis in trust for Abbie M. Cleveland,’ the last followed by the words printed from a stamp, ‘In case of death of trustee amount to be paid to beneficiary’ ($1,400, April 28, 1899). There is the further fact that a few days before her death the depositor said to a friend that she had given these books to the plaintiff beside what she had given in her will. On the other hand she never communicated any such intent to the plaintiff, and always kept the books herself. Shortly after drawing her will she showed the last mentioned book to her counsel and told him that she did not intend to make any gifts outside her will and, he having said that there was some risk, said that she would go to the bank, although it does not appear that she did so. Just before her death she directed the books to be handed to her counsel. It is found also that on the same day that she made the first mentioned deposit Sarah Davis deposited in the same bank $1,000 in her own name. The will which was made would have exhausted her personal estate, including the books in question. Her real estate was inventoried at $2,500.

The plaintiff's argument invites us to reconsider the Massachusetts law, especially the case of Clark v. Clark, 108 Mass. 522, in view of criticisms elsewhere, of which it is enough to refer, not for the first time, to Martin v. Funk, 75 N. Y. 134, 139,31 Am....