Craig v. Bradley

• Decision Date: 30 January 1911
• Parties: CRAIG, Public Adm'r, v. BRADLEY.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

134 S.W. 1081

153 Mo. A. 586

CRAIG, Public Adm'r, v. BRADLEY.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 30, 1911.

1. HUSBAND AND WIFE (§ 14)—ESTATE IN ENTIRETY—EXISTENCE.

Estates by the entirety in personal property exist as at common law, unaffected by the married women's statutes.

2. HUSBAND AND WIFE (§ 14)—ESTATE IN ENTIRETY—NOTES.

A note payable to husband and wife and arising from a sale of lands held by them in entirety belonged to the estate in entirety; full title vesting in her on his death.

3. HUSBAND AND WIFE (§ 14)—ESTATE IN ENTIRETY—DEPOSITS.

Whether bank deposits by a husband alone in the name of both himself and wife are held in entirety depends upon intention; direction to keep the account in both names not being conclusive.

4. HUSBAND AND WIFE (§ 14)—DEPOSITS— JOINT OWNERSHIP — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY.

Evidence held to show that deposits in the name of husband and wife were intended to pass to the survivor.

5. HUSBAND AND WIFE (§ 14)—TENANCY BY THE ENTIRETY—REQUISITES.

To constitute an estate in entirety, each tenant must have an ownership in the whole estate, and the right to claim by survivorship must be mutual.

6. HUSBAND AND WIFE (§ 14)—ESTATE IN ENTIRETY—PROPERTY EMBRACED.

A note to a husband and wife or either for a loan made by joining their separate funds became part of the estate by the entirety which survived to her, being so intended.

7. HUSBAND AND WIFE (§ 14)—ESTATE IN ENTIRETY—NATURE OF OWNERSHIP.

Owners of the estate by entirety take by the whole, and not by the moiety.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Johnson County; Sam. Davis, Judge.

Action by A. M. Craig, Public Administrator, against T. L. Bradley, administrator. From the judgment, both parties appeal. Reversed and remanded.

M. D. Aber and O. L. Houts, for Craig. J. W. Suddath & Son, for Bradley.

ELLISON, J.

William E. Bradley and Julia A. Bradley were husband and wife, without children. They lived to an old age, and died a few days apart, he on the 16th and she on the 29th of March, 1909. He left a will whereby he gave to Julia A. all of his personal property during her life. Defendant was appointed administrator of the estate. Upon Julia's death plaintiff, as public administrator, was put in charge of her estate, and he then brought this action to recover the following personal property claimed by defendant to belong to him as administrator of her deceased husband: One note for $3,600 payable to William E. and Julia Bradley, indorsed, interest paid to July 7, 1908, $200 paid on principal. One note for $2,500 payable to William E. Bradley and Julia A. Bradley or either of them, interest paid to January 4, 1909, $200 paid on principal. Deposit in the Farmers' & Commercial Bank in the name of William E. and Julia A. Bradley, $309.36. Deposit in the Bank of Holden in the name of William E. and Julia A. Bradley, $181.10. The action is based on the claim that the property thus held by these parties was an estate in the entirety, and as such, upon the death of William, it became the sole property of Julia. The evidence showed the note for $3,600 was given as purchase price of a tract of realty owned by William and Julia as an estate by the entirety. That the note for $2,500 was given to them for borrowed money and of that sum Julia contributed $1,083.75, which was drawn by her from the bank out of her separate account; the remainder, $1,416.25, was drawn by William by check on their joint account. The evidence further showed that the deposits which constituted the joint account were made by William, and all checks on that account were drawn by him, with one exception when Julia drew $25. The trial court found that plaintiff was entitled to the note for $3,600, on the theory that, besides being made payable to both, it was the proceeds of the sale of real estate held by entirety, and, as such, was the property of the surviving wife. The court further found that the note for $2,500 was not held in entirety, but that plaintiff was entitled to $1,083.75 of it on the ground that that was the sum Julia put in it. The court found for defendant as to the balance of that note, and also for both bank accounts. There were some other findings not necessary to notice, not being in dispute. Both parties appealed.

The defendant's complaint is that William owned one half of the note for $3,600, and that, therefore, he should have had judgment for one half, instead of plaintiff for all of it. Plaintiff's complaint is that the finding should have been in his favor for all of the note for $2,500, as well as all of the bank accounts, on the ground of an estate by the entirety in Julia, his intestate. Defendant claims that, while formerly there could be estates in entirety in personal property, such estates have been, in effect, abolished by the married women's statutes which have been enacted in this state in recent years, which, in a property sense, disunite husband and wife. So that his full claim is that, while the estate in entirety in lands has been preserved to husband and wife, such estate has been destroyed as to them in all personal property. The latter part of this claim is in direct conflict with the views of the Supreme Court. Frost v. Frost, 200 Mo. 474, 98 S. W. 527, 118 Am. St. Rep. 689; Bains v. Bullock, 129 Mo. 117, 31 S. W. 342. In the latter case it was said that while the statute abolished the legal unity between husband and wife, which gave rise to estates by the entirety, it left the estate itself intact. In the former case it is said that the married woman's statute did not have estates by entirety in view, and did not intend any interference therewith, and that such estates had not been altered in any respect. And to the same effect, considering similar statutes, are the cases of Boland v. McKowen, 189 Mass. 563, 76 N. E. 206, 109 Am. St. Rep. 663, and Pray v. Stebbins, 141 Mass. 219, 4 N. E. 824, 55 Am. Rep. 462. Therefore estates by the entirety still existing as at common law, the case should be determined unaffected by the married woman's statute.

The note for $3,600 was not only payable to William and Julia, which alone was sufficient, but it arose from the sale of lands held by them in entirety. Undoubtedly it was an estate in entirety, and the trial court properly ruled that upon his death the full title remained in her.

Both bank accounts were made up of deposits by the husband alone in the name of both. Whether these were held in entirety depends upon the intention. The mere direction of the husband to the bank to keep the account in their joint names is not conclusive, but it has a favorable bearing on the question in the wife's favor. Thus, if a husband buys land with his own money and takes title in his wife, it will be presumed he intended it to be a provision for her. And the same is true where he causes a note to be taken in her name. Case v. Espenschied, 169 Mo. 215, 69 S. W. 276, 92 Am. St. Rep. 633. We consider that the evidence and circumstances surrounding these persons in connection with the presumption just stated leave no doubt that it was the intention of the husband, and indeed the wife's also, that the survivor was to have the whole of the accounts. The case of Platt v. Grubb, 41 Hun (N. Y.) 447, is much like the one before us, and it was there held that upon the death of the husband the wife took the whole account as survivor. We have given much consideration to the note for $2,500. We think it is not improper ordinarily in an estate of this kind to test one party's right by the right of the other. May we not say by way of illustration that a test of plaintiff's right, as representing the wife in the capacity of administrator of her estate, is the right the husband would have had in that note had he survived her? For the right to claim by reason of survivorship should be mutual. The right of each depends upon a corresponding right of the other; for to be an estate by the entirety each must have an ownership in the whole of the estate. Therefore, if the husband could not rightly have claimed the whole of the note, had he survived his wife, she cannot claim it as his survivor. The ground stated as the reason why the husband could not have claimed it as an estate by the entirety is that to allow such claim would be to annul the statute protecting the separate property of married women, to which we...