Farleigh v. Cadman

• Decision Date: 12 May 1899
• Citation: 53 N.E. 808,159 N.Y. 169
• Parties: FARLEIGH v. CADMAN.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

159 N.Y. 169

53 N.E. 808

FARLEIGH

v.CADMAN.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 12, 1899.

Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, Second department.

Action by Cora Imogene Farleigh against Alfred J. Cadman and others to have $778 and interest deposited by Sarah Cadman in the name of William J. Cadman for the benefit of plaintiff declared a trust, and to have other moneys added by William J. Cadman to the deposit declared a part of such trust fund in favor of plaintiff. There was a judgment declaring a trust in a part of such fund in favor of plaintiff, and both parties appealed to the appellate division. From a judgment affirming the same (41 N. Y. Supp. 981), plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and judgment ordered for plaintiff for the whole amount of the deposit as it stood at a certain date.

TRUST DEPOSIT-VALIDITY-PRESUMPTION.

1. Plaintiff, though never legally adopted, was taken into a family when but a few weeks old, and taught to regard the father and mother as her parents. When she was about 12 years old, in pursuance of an arrangement between the husband and the wife a sum of money belonging to the wife was by her authority deposited in bank in the name of the husband, in trust for plaintiff, who was present when this was done. Held, that a valid and irrevocable trust was thereby created.

TRUST DEPOSIT-VALIDITY-PRESUMPTION.

2. It will be presumed that subsequent deposits made on the same account were likewise made in trust for her.

George G. Reynolds, for appellant.

Robert D. Benedict, for respondent.

O'BRIEN, J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover certain moneys that came to the hands of the defendant, and which were claimed by the plaintiff as a trust fund created for her benefit. The facts are undisputed, and the controversy from the beginning involved questions of law only.

When the plaintiff was a child three or four weeks, old, she was taken into the family of the defendant's father, William J. Cadman. Although never legally adopted, she was treated by him and his wife as their own child, and was cared for and educated in the same manner. The plaintiff supposed that they were her real parents until after she had grown to years of maturity, and when about 22 years of age she married without the consent of Mr. Cadman. Until this event the plaintiff and the defendant were considered and treated as the two children of the household, since there were no others to provide for. Prior to the 20th of April, 1878, Mrs. Cadman had some money in her own right, and at least a portion of it was on deposit in a savings bank to her credit. She and her husband arranged to set apart this money, or a portion of it, for the benefit of the plaintiff; and in pursuance of the arrangement the wife dilivered her bank pass book to the husband, with the necessary order to enable him to draw the money, to the end that it might be deposited for the plaintiff's benefit in the same savings bank. On the date last mentioned the husband took this pass book and the order to the South Brooklyn Savings Institution, and there opened an account in his own name ‘in trust for Cora L. Cadman,’ the plaintiff; that being the name she bore at all times prior to her marriage. The amount placed to the credit of this account on that day was $778, all of which was transferred from the account of Mrs. Cadman in the bank, and which was represented by the pass book and order which she had delivered to her husband. The plaintiff, then about 12 years of age, had been informed of this arrangement for her benefit, and was present at the bank with her father (as she then supposed him to be) when the account was opened; so that she may be regarded, at least in some sense, as a party to the transaction. It is clear from the record that the purpose of this transaction was to make a provision for the plaintiff's benefit, and it took this form after consultation in the family and with the officers of the bank. It cannot be doubted that a valid and irrevocable trust was thereby created for the plaintiff's benefit, within all the authorities on that subject. Martin v. Funk, 75 N. Y. 134;Willis v. Smyth, 91 N. Y. 297;Mabie v. Bailey, 95 N. Y. 206;Beaver v. Beaver, 117 N. Y. 421, 22 N. E. 940;Cunningham v. Davenport, 147 N. Y. 43, 41 N. E. 412;Fowler v. Bank, 113 N. Y. 450, 21 N. E. 172;Schluter v. Bank, 117 N. Y. 125, 22 N. E. 572. In substance and legal effect, that was the finding of the learned trial court, which has been affirmed at the appellate division, and so far we are concluded by the decision. But Cadman, the trustee, subsequently made various other deposits to the credit of this account, and drew out sums aggregating something over $200, which were used for the plaintiff's benefit. On the 7th day of January, 1889, about the time of the plaintiff's marriage,-which the trustee did not approve,-he drew out the whole sum standing to the credit of the trust account, which appears to have been $2,774.16, with perhaps some accumulated interest to be added, closed the account, and opened a new account in his own name in trust for his son, the defendant, Alfred J. Cadman. He continued to make deposits to the credit of this new account, in small sums, and to draw out small sums, up to the time of his death, on the 19th of September, 1892. The defendant was appointed the executor of his father's will, and on the 27th of September, 1892, he drew out all the money standing to the credit of his father in the new trust account, and deposited it in the same bank in a new account, in his individual name. In this way the defendant became possessed of the whole fund. Both parties have appealed from the judgment,-the defendant, because the plaintiff was permitted to recover the amount of the original deposit of $778, and interest; and the plaintiff, because she was not...