Grant Trust And Savings Company v. Tucker
Decision Date | 17 November 1911 |
Docket Number | 7,609 |
Parties | GRANT TRUST AND SAVINGS COMPANY, ADMINISTRATOR, v. TUCKER |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Rehearing denied February 2, 1912.
From Grant Circuit Court; H. J. Paulus, Judge.
Action by Cora M. Tucker against the Grant Trust and Savings Company, as administrator of the estate of Harvey S. Mark deceased. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Field W. Sweezy, Robert M. Van Atta and Condo & Browne, for appellant.
Brownlee & Cline and Miller, Shirley & Miller, for appellee.
It appears from the special finding of facts that appellant's decedent, Harvey S. Mark, was on April 7 1899, the owner of certain United States bonds; that on and prior to said date said bonds had been enclosed in an envelope and left for sale keeping in the vault of the Marion Bank, of the city of Marion, Indiana; that on that day decedent wrote upon said envelope as follows:
and delivered the package to said bank, and it was placed in its vault; that thereafter said Mark procured additional government bonds, and in each instance he directed George Webster, Jr., who was cashier of said bank, to place said bonds in the envelope with the bonds already placed therein, to which he referred as "Cora's other bonds;" that said Webster on such occasions asked him if he desired to continue his previous instructions, to which he replied, in substance, that he did, and on each occasion, at his direction, said cashier indorsed on said envelope the following:
"May 5, 1905. Renewed this instruction.
G. W., Jr.
May 9, 1906. This instruction continued.
G. W., Jr.
February 14, 1908. This instruction continued.
that such was the usual heading used in such receipts, and was given to distinguish said envelope from packages and papers belonging to the bank, or held by it as collateral; that said memorandum was made without any suggestion from Mr. Mark, or any question as to their ownership, and was to show that the bonds did not belong to the bank.
The court also found facts showing the change in the organization of the bank and the divorce of appellee from her former husband, Breed, but no controversy arises in regard to either of such facts.
Upon the foregoing finding the court stated its conclusions of law as follows: (1) That Harvey S. Mark, in his lifetime, made an absolute gift of the bonds in question to appellee, reserving to himself the income thereof during his natural life; that appellee is the absolute owner and entitled to the possession of all said bonds; (2) that appellant has no interest in said bonds, and at the death of said Mark held possession thereof as trustee for appellee, and in no other capacity, which bonds, on the death of said Mark, were to be delivered to appellee.
It is conceded that appellant's decedent intended to give the bonds in question to appellee, but counsel assert that he failed so to execute the gift in his lifetime by delivering the bonds, and thus did not meet the requirements of the law and perfect the intended gift.
It is the law in this State that to make a valid gift inter vivos, it is essential that the article given be unconditionally delivered in the lifetime of the donor to the donee or to some third person for the use and benefit of the intended donee. If, however, such third person be only the agent of the donor, the death of the latter revokes the authority of the agent, and the gift is defeated. Smith v. Ferguson (1883), 90 Ind. 229, 46 Am. Rep. 216; Martin v. McCullough (1894), 136 Ind. 331, 338, 34 N.E. 819; Bingham v. Stage (1890), 123 Ind. 281, 286, 23 N.E. 756; Devol v. Dye (1890), 123 Ind. 321, 326, 7 L. R. A. 439, 24 N.E. 246; Goelz v. People's Sav. Bank (1903), 31 Ind.App. 67, 67 N.E. 232.
Appellant contends that the decedent never parted with the control of or title to the bonds in his lifetime, and that all he did was to express a definite intention to give the bonds to appellee and appoint the bank his agent to execute such intention after his death; that appellee did not in the lifetime of the donor acquire any present interest in the bonds; that control thereof did not pass to appellee or any one acting as trustee for her, beyond the power of revocation by the donor at any time during his lifetime.
If this contention can be sustained, appellant should prevail. In this case...
To continue reading
Request your trial