Commonwealth Trust Co v. Grobel
| Decision Date | 18 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 48/665.,48/665. |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO v. GROBEL et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Bill of interpleader by the Commonwealth Trust Company against Charles Grobel, administrator of the estate of Robert Grobel, Sr., deceased, and Sophie Grobel. Decree advised in favor of the last-named defendant.
J. W. Ockford, of Jersey City, for administrator.
Louis G. Hansen, of Jersey City, for Sophie Grobel.
This is a bill of interpleader. The only question to be determined is whether a bank account in the Commonwealth Trust Company standing in the name of husband and wife passed to the wife upon the death of her husband. The deceased and his wife worked together. He was a business man, and his wife, in addition to her household duties, assisted him more or less in his business, and it seems that the moneys deposited in this account were derived wholly from this business. The account was opened on September 13, 1918, by the deposit of $500. The trust company handed to Mrs. Grobel the deposit book, No. 11146. In this book, under the names of the parties, there was imprinted with a rubber stamp, in plain view, the words, "as joint tenants and not as tenants in common, the survivor to take." At the time of the original deposit the parties also signed and delivered to the trust company a memorandum in the following words:
"This account is opened by us and intended to create a joint estate to us as joint tenants and not as tenants in common."
Grobel, Sr., died intestate. Letters were granted to Sophie Grobel, his wife, and Charles Grobel, a son by a former marriage. At the time of intestate's death there was on deposit the sum of $2,112, with interest. The intestate's estate and the widow of the intestate both set up claims to the fund.
The conclusion I have reached is that, when the parties signed the memorandum stating that they were to hold "as joint tenants and not as tenants in common," as well as the entry in the bank book that they were "to hold as joint tenants and not as tenants in common, the survivor to take," a contract was created between the two depositors and the bank which gave the survivor the right to take.
This case is clearly controlled by New Jersey Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Archibald, 90 N. J. Eq. 384, 107 Atl. 472, affirmed, 108 Atl. 434.
I will advise a decree that the fund, on the death of Mr. Grobel, passed to this wife, Sophie, as survivor.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matthew v. Moncrief
...1926, 99 N.J.Eq. 119, 132 A. 761 (two types of deposits created under different circumstances concerned); Commonwealth Trust Co. v. Grobel, 1921, 93 N.J.Eq. 78, 114 A. 353; New Jersey Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Archibald, 1919, 91 N.J.Eq. 82, 108 A. 434; Cleveland Trust Co. v. Scobie, 19......
-
O'Brien v. Biegger
... ... would get her share from her father's estate, she would ... put the same trust in her husband in her account, that he put ... in her. There is nothing strange or unreasonable in ... 9, 95 S.E. 802; In re Staver's Estate, supra, ... 218 Wis. 114, 260 N.W. 655; Commonwealth Trust Co. v. Grobel, ... 93 N.J.Eq. 78, 114 A. 353; Illinois Trust & Savings Bank ... v. Van ... ...
-
Lafayette-South Side Bank & Trust Co. v. Siefert
...presumption, at least, of joint tenancy and right of survivorship. Kennedy v. McMurray, 146 P. 647; Miller v. Bank, 206 P. 796; Trust Co. v. Grobel, 114 A. 353; O'Connor v. Dunnigan, 143 N.Y.S. 373; v. Brunner, 169 N.W. 890; Hatsted v. Bank, 172 P. 613. However, we are concerned with the la......
-
Walnut Valley State Bank v. Stovall
...from donor to donee (not one merely for use and convenience of the donor) and hence constituted a valid gift.' Commonwealth Trust Co. v. Grovel, 93 N.J.Eq. 78, 114 A. 353; Commercial Trust Co. v. White, 99 N.J.Eq. 119, 132 A. 761; affirmed, 100 N.J.Eq. 561, 135 A. 916; Trenton Saving Fund S......