Commerce Trust Co. v. Watts

• Decision Date: 22 June 1949
• Docket Number: No. 21197.,21197.
• Parties: COMMERCE TRUST CO. v. WATTS et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

222 S.W.2d 937

COMMERCE TRUST CO. v. WATTS et al.

No. 21197.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 22, 1949.

Motion for Rehearing Overruled October 3, 1949.

Roy P. Swanson, Kansas City, Charles B. Blackmar, Kansas City, Blackmar, Newkirk, Eager, Swanson & Midgley, Kansas City, for appellant.

W. Raleigh Gough, Kansas City, for respondent.

SPERRY, Commissioner.

The subject of this suit is a joint deposit, carried in Commerce Trust Company in the name of Amos B. Crandall and Hattie Watts. Commerce Trust Company, a banking corporation filed its bill of interpleader, naming as defendant therein Hattie Watts, appellant, and George L. Birlew, executor of the estate of Mr. Crandall, deceased, respondent. The court sustained the action and, on a trial to the court without a jury, judgment was for respondent and against appellant.

Mr. Crandall had no children. His wife had three sisters, Mrs. Birlew, Mrs. Thayer, and appellant. Mrs. Crandall became ill and, at Mr. Crandall's request appellant, who is a nurse, came to their home in Kansas City, to help care for her. Mrs. Birlew also came at about the time of Mrs. Crandall's death, which occurred January 11, 1944, but she returned to her home in Portland, Oregon, after the funeral. Mr. Crandall's health was very bad and appellant remained with him for sometime thereafter. About February 21, 1944, Mr. Crandall and appellant went to the plaintiff bank, signed, executed and filed with it an instrument wherein they agreed with each other and with the bank that all deposits made therein by either of them should be owned by them jointly and with the right of survivorship, and subject to check or order by either of them.

All deposits in said account were made by Mr. Crandall. The passbook, issued by the bank in connection with this account, remained at all times in his possession and all checks written against the account, prior to his death, were written by him. The initial deposit was in the amount of $600. Deposits made thereafter totaled $10,322. Thirty-four checks were written and paid on the account, leaving a balance of $1650, at the time of Mr. Crandall's death. The checks were for living expenses, except the following: one for $3700, used to purchase the home which was deeded to Mr. and Mrs. Birlew; and three checks totaling $4125, for purchase of bonds. Mr. Crandall gave to Mr. Birlew $2000 in bonds, to Mrs. Birlew, $500 in bonds and $1000 in insurance, to Thayer Birlew, son of Mr. and Mrs. Birlew, $1000 in bonds, and to appellant $500 in bonds and $2000 in insurance.

On March 30, 1944, Mr. Crandall made a will wherein he directed that his debts and funeral expenses be paid out of his estate; and bequeathed $500 to Mrs. Thayer, $500 to appellant, $500 to the children of the deceased adoptive son of Mrs. Crandall, and the residue of his estate to Mr. and Mrs. Birlew. When he died, April 18, 1945, the assets of his estate, exclusive of the balance due on this deposit, consisted of three checks totaling the amount of $308.32.

In April, 1944, Mr. and Mrs. Birlew disposed of their home and moved to Kansas City to look after Mr. Crandall, pursuant to an understanding that they had with him. Mr. Crandall sold his home which he then occupied and bought a larger home, in which he and the Birlews lived until his death.

The evidence was to the effect that after his death Mr. and Mrs. Birlew, appellant, and Mrs. Thayer, met at the Birlew home and agreed not to probate the estate, appellant agreeing at that time to write a check for the funeral expenses, and checks of $500 each in payment of the legacies to herself and to the children of the deceased adoptive son of Mrs. Crandall. She stated at the time that the money in the account belonged to Mr. Crandall. She wrote the checks. The one for funeral expense, and the one to herself, were cashed. The other check was left at the Birlew home and, before it was cashed, appellant returned from a trip and destroyed the check. This testimony was admitted over appellant's objection.

Respondent also offered testimony, to which objection was sustained, to the effect that, on an occasion some few weeks after the account was opened, Mr. Crandall went to the bank in company with Mr. Birlew with the stated intention of changing the account to his name and that of Mr. Birlew, but was dissuaded by the latter; that he was prompted to change the account to himself and respondent because he thought appellant had written checks on the account; and that, when told of this incident by respondent, appellant stated that she would not write checks on the account except in case of emergency.

Appellant testified to the effect that when the account was opened Mr. Crandall told her, "It was for the use and benefit of both, that if either of us needed money you know where you can get it." She stated that she would not have checked on the account except in emergency, that she would hesitate to check on it so long as she was working and had money, but that since he had given her an interest in the account she now claimed same; that when she agreed to write the checks mentioned in evidence she was not informed as to her rights.

Appellant objected to the introduction of any parol evidence tending to contradict the terms of the deposit agreement. She contends here that the deposit agreement constitutes a written contract, the terms of which may not be varied by parol evidence....