Corkum v. Salvation Army of Mass., Inc.

Decision Date17 December 1959
PartiesWilliam E. CORKUM, Executor, v. SALVATION ARMY OF MASSACHUSETTS, INCORPORATED.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

John J. Mahan, Boston, William E. Corkum, Jamaica Plain, for petitioner.

John A. Perkins, Boston, for respondent.

Before SPALDING, WILLIAMS, COUNIHAN and CUTTER, JJ.

SPALDING, Justice.

This petition in equity was brought to determine ownership in six bank accounts. The petitioner is the executor of the will of Lois B. Thomas (sometimes known as Blanche L. Thomas) late of Boston. There are numerous respondents but the only one that we are concerned with in this appeal is the Salvation Army of Massachusetts, Incorporated, hereinafter called Salvation Army. The only account here in issue is a savings share account (No. 1224) in the Jamaica Plain Co-operative Bank.

The judge made no findings of fact and no report of material facts was requested. A decree was entered adjudging that the account in question belonged to the estate of the testatrix. Salvation Army appealed. The evidence is reported.

From the evidence, which was virtually undisputed, we find the following facts: On October 18, 1954, the testatrix opened an account in her own name in the Jamaica Plain Co-operative Bank, hereinafter called the bank. On November 14, 1955, she transferred the account into an account standing in the names of Lois B. Thomas or Julia A. Haskell, payable to either or survivor. Subsequently, on July 17, 1957, she withdraw the amount standing in the account and opened up the account (No. 1224) in dispute. The signature card, which was signed only by the testatrix, bears the following notation written by one Allen, the bank's treasurer: 'Trans to self or Salvation Army Hosp Corey Hill Brookline.' 1 The passbook for the account was issued in the names of 'Lois B. Thomas or Salvation Army Hosp Corey Hill, Brookline.' Allen never notified Salvation Army of the account and there is no evidence that notice was given by any other official of the bank. A search of its records by Salvation Army reveals no record of such notification.

Where a case, as here, comes to us with a report of the evidence, but without findings of fact, the entry of the decree imports a finding of every fact essential to sustain it within the scope of the pleadings and supported by the evidence; and such implied findings will not be reversed unless plainly wrong. Carmichael v. Carmichael, 324 Mass. 118, 119, 85 N.E.2d 229. But here much of the crucial evidence is documentary, and the oral testimony, not being in dispute, presents no question of belief or disbelief. In this situation we are in as good a position to decide the case as was the trial judge. See Bratt v. Cox, 290 Mass. 553, 557-558, 195 N.E. 787; Skil Corp. v. Barnet, 337 Mass. 485, 488, 150 N.E.2d 551. And in doing so we may draw our own inferences of fact from the basic facts shown, without deference to any inferences which might have been drawn by the trial judge. Malone v. Walsh, 315 Mass. 484, 490, 53 N.E.2d 126. MacLennan v. MacLennan, 316 Mass. 593, 595, 55 N.E.2d 928.

Plainly there was no trust created with respect to the account in question, and we do not understand that Salvation Army contends that there was. The lack of notice to the beneficiary alone would be fatal (Aronian v. Asadoorian, 315 Mass. 274, 276-277, 52 N.E.2d 397; Berger v. Berger, 333 Mass. 540, 544, 132 N.E.2d 179) and we need not consider whether there are other reasons. We mention this because there was testimony by Mrs. Haskell that the testatrix had told her that she was 'setting up a trust fund' for Salvation Army.

The question, then, is whether there was a valid inter vivos gift of a joint interest in the account in question as distinguished from an attempted testamentary disposition. 'The law on this subject of joint accounts has been stated in a number of decisions of this court, such as Goldston v. Randolph, 293 Mass. 253, 199 N.E. 896, 103 A.L.R. 1117; Batal v. Buss, 293 Mass. 329, 199 N.E. 750; Castle v. Wightman, 303 Mass. 74, 20 N.E.2d 436; Sullivan v. Hudgins, 303 Mass. 442, 22 N.E.2d 43; Ball v. Forbes, 314 Mass. 200, 49 N.E.2d 898; Malone v. Walsh, 315 Mass. 484, 53 N.E.2d 126; and ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Peters v. Archambault
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1972
    ...Co., 316 Mass. 133, 135, 54 N.E.2d 928. We need not defer to any inference which he may have drawn. Corkum v. Salvation Army of Mass. Inc., 340 Mass. 165, 166--167, 162 N.E.2d 778. East Coast Aviation Corp. v. Massachusetts Port Authy., 346 Mass. 699, 705, 195 N.E.2d 545. I proceed on this ......
  • Blanchette v. Blanchette
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 19, 1972
    ...52 N.E.2d 397, and cases cited; Milkshis v. Palionis, 345 Mass. 316, 318--319, 187 N.E.2d 147. Compare Corkum v. Salvation Army of Mass., Inc., 340 Mass. 165, 167--168, 162 N.E.2d 778; Cooney v. Montana, 347 Mass. 29, 36--37, 196 N.E.2d 202. Contractual arrangements vary in their formality.......
  • Attorney General v. Book Named 'Tropic of Cancer'
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • July 17, 1962
    ...* from the basic facts * * * without deference to any inferences * * * drawn by the trial judge.' See Corkum v. Salvation Army of Mass., Inc., 340 Mass. 165, 166-167, 162 N.E.2d 778, 780. See also Skil Corp. v. Barnet, 337 Mass. 485, 488, 150 N.E.2d 2. The issue 'is whether the' material ca......
  • Wilson v. Jennings
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1962
    ...Inc. v. Town of Amesbury, 338 Mass. 796, 156 N.E.2d 422; Johnson v. McMahon, Mass., 182 N.E.2d 507. b Cf. Corkum v. Salvation Army of Mass., Inc., 340 Mass. 165, 166, 162 N.E.2d 778. These findings (supplemented in minor respects by the evidence) are summarized In 1955 Wilson and Malick, ea......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT