Gardner v. Merritt

• Decision Date: 01 February 1870
• Citation: 32 Md. 78
• Parties: ISAIAH GARDNER, Guardian, and others, v. SUSANNA MERRITT.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

32 Md. 78

ISAIAH GARDNER, Guardian, and others, v. SUSANNA MERRITT.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 1, 1870

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, in Equity.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., STEWART, MAULSBY GRASON, MILLER and ALVEY, J.

B C. Presstman and S. Teackle Wallis, for the appellants.

The Circuit Court erred in supposing the grand-mother had not given the money to the children because she reserved control over it, instead of considering whether that control was reserved for their benefit and not hers. Infants cannot check out money, and yet no prudent person would put money in bank for an infant without giving some one the power to check it out for the infant's protection in case of danger, or the offer of a better investment. Adams' Equity, 80; Cox vs. Springg, 6 Md., 274; 2 Redf. on Wills, 317, 318; Hills vs. Hills, 8 Mees. & Wels., 401; Edwards vs. Jones, 13 Cond. Eng. Ch., 377; Mory vs. Michael, 18 Md., 227; Kilpin vs. Kilpin, 1 Mylne & Keene, 520; Fortescue vs. Barnett, 8 Cond. Eng. Ch., 208.

The defendant's receipting, as for the infants, though it did not bind the mother's estate as an estoppel, was evidence nevertheless, and conclusive that the defendant knew and recognized the money as the children's, and that her right to check it out (and she was but the mother's agent) was given by her mother for the children's benefit. Mangum vs. Webster, 7 Gill, 82; Dent vs. Dent, 3 Gill, 482; 1 Greenleaf on Ev., 179.

Thomas Rowland and E. G. Kilbourn, for the appellee.

It is admitted that Mrs. Merritt was the owner of the money when she made the deposit. The legal ownership clearly continued with her up to the time of her death notwithstanding the deposit, because the money was held by the bank as bailee, subject to her order or that of her designated agent, and the bank could have lawfully paid it to no one else. At her death, then the legal ownership necessarily passed to her executrix. So much for the legal title.

Now, if the equitable title to this money ever vested in the grand-children of Mrs. Merritt, it must have been by some act of her's, consummated in her lifetime or by a testamentary disposition, taking effect at her death. The appellants do not claim under the will, and their title depends therefore upon the answer which may be given to a single question: Did Mrs. Merritt, by the deposits which she made, divest herself of the equitable title to this money, and constitute herself a trustee for her grand-children?

If she did not, she died the legal and equitable owner of this money, the legal title to which is now vested in her executrix, and the equitable title in her residuary legatees.

The deposits made by Mrs. Merritt in the names of her grand-children, did not change the legal or equitable owner-ship of the fund in controversy. Pennington vs. Gittings, 2 G. & J., 208; Nickerson vs. Nickerson, 28 Md., 327; Hitch vs. Davis, 3 Md. Ch. Dec., 266; Thompson vs. Dorsey, 4 Md. Ch.

Dec., 149; Cox vs. Sprigg, 6 Md., 274.

MAULSBY J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Susanna A. Merritt, the grand-mother of the appellants, (complainants below,) John G. Gardner, Mary V. Livingston, (formerly Gardner,) Frances C. Gardner, Helen M. Gardner and Emma S. Gardner, deposited during her life, sundry sums of money in the Savings Bank of Baltimore, to the credit of these complainants, having caused accounts to be opened in the Bank in the name of each of them, as a minor, and containing immediately after the name of the infant, the words, "subject to the order of Susanna A. Merritt or Susanna Merritt." To these accounts she commenced on September 4th, 1860, to make deposits and continued during the years 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864 and 1865, to November 13th, depositing equal sums, within a small fraction, to each account, and altogether to the amount, with the interest accrued and credited, when due, to each, of thirteen hundred and three dollars and five cents.

In December, 1865, she died, and after her death all these moneys were withdrawn from the bank by the appellee, and subsequently were claimed by her as belonging to the estate of Susanna A. Merritt.

The question is, whether these moneys became, when deposited by the grandmother, perfected gifts to the grandchildren, to whose account she had deposited them, or whether they remained, after the deposits, the property of the grandmother--whether the gifts were perfected, or whether the facts manifest an intention to give in future--whether the acts of making the deposits, under all the proof in the cause, divested the grandmother of her title to the moneys, and vested the same in the infants.

The Vice Chancellor, in the case of Hughes vs. Stubbs, 1 Hare, 479, says: "The result of the cases is, that the Court looks into the nature of the transaction, and determines, from the nature of the transaction, what the effect of it shall be in divesting the owner of the property to which it relates." Before the moneys were deposited, they were the property of Mrs. Merritt. The proof is, that some time in or about the date at which she commenced to make these deposits, the date not definitely fixed by the witness, she declared that she "was going to put the money in bank for the children." She did put money in bank, and caused it, when she so put it, to be entered to the credits or accounts of the several children. The third section of the charter of the Savings Bank, and the first and seventh of the by-laws, contained in the record, serve to show the character and intent of the acts of deposit by Mrs. Merritt. The corporation was empowered to receive from any person or persons any deposits of money, and to invest the same in public stocks or other securities, and to allow interest, and to divide surplus profits. It was organized and incorporated for the purpose of receiving such small sums of money as are the profits of industry and economy, or legacies, or donations to widows, children, and others, &c.

Guardians may deposit for the benefit of their wards, and parents for the benefit of their children, and, if desired at the time of deposit, subject the same to the control of such guardian or parent. Mrs. Merritt must be presumed to have had knowledge of these provisions. She acted on them by depositing money for the benefit of her grand-children, and subjected the same to the order of herself, or of her daughter, the appellee. It is maintained by the appellee that the moneys deposited did not become, thereby, the property of the several infants, in whose names, or to whose accounts they were deposited, because they remained, by force of the words, "subject to the order of Susanna A. Merritt or Susanna Merritt," the property of the donor; that these words explained and limited the acts of deposit to the...