Greeley v. Flynn
| Citation | 36 N.E.2d 394,310 Mass. 23 |
| Parties | GREELEY v. FLYNN. |
| Decision Date | 10 September 1941 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit in equity by Francis J. Greeley, guardian of Nelly Conway, otherwise known as Nellie Conway, an insane person, against Edward J. Flynn and another, to compel the named defendant to deliver to plaintiff the savings bank book issued by the defendant Brockton Savings Bank and to compel the defendant bank to pay over to the plaintiff the deposit represented by the savings bank book. From an adverse decree, the named defendant appeals.
Order in accordance with opinion.Appeal from Superior Court, Plymouth County; Donahue, Judge.
Argued before FIELD, C. J., and DONAHUE, DOLAN, and RONAN, JJ.
J. A. Reilly, of Brockton, for defendant Flynn.
C. J. Muldoon, of Boston, and F. J. Greeley, of Somerville, for plaintiff.
This is a suit in equity in which the plaintiff, as he is guardian of Nelly Conway, otherwise known as Nellie Conway, an insane person, seeks to compel the defendant Flynn (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) to deliver to him a savings bank book issued by the defendant Brockton Savings Bank in the name of ‘Nellie Conway, trustee for Edward J. Flynn,’ and to compel the bank to pay over to the plaintiff the deposit represented by the savings bank book. The bank answering set forth that it had in its hands and possession the sum of $1,545.98 deposited on the account in question, and was holding the same ‘subject to the further orders of * * * [the] court.’ The defendant answering claimed the deposit as a gift from ‘Nellie Conway’ and, in the alternative, that a valid trust of the deposit had been created by her for his benefit. The case was referred to a master. An interlocutory decree was entered confirming his report, and thereafter a final decree was entered that the defendant turn over and surrender the bank book in question to the plaintiff ‘guardian,’ and that the bank, upon presentation of the book of deposit by the plaintiff, transfer the account to him as guardian.
Material facts found by the master may be summarized as follows: Miss Conway was about seventy-three years old at the time of the hearing before the master. She came to the United States about fifty-seven years ago, and worked as ‘housemaid and cook’ in New York and several places in Massachusetts. She was a resident of Brockton on September 9, 1935, when she was committed to the State Hospital in Foxborough. She had never married. The plaintiff was appointed guardian of her person and property on December 6, 1938. The defendant is her nephew. Prior to 1903 Miss Conway opened an account in her own name in the defendant bank. On January 21, 1926, the account was transferred into the name of ‘Nellie Conway, Trustee for Edward J. Flynn.’ The balance at that time was $1,881.56. On May 4, 1933, she reported the bank book as lost or stolen. On June 12, 1933, the bank issued a new ‘pass' book under the same description as to the depositor. On October 9, 1933, she reported this book as ‘stolen.’ A new book was issued thereafter under the same designation. On the original ledger card these words were typewritten: This notation was made by a teller at the request of Miss Conway on May 4, 1933. It does not appear upon the ledger cards which were made when the books were issued. She ‘alone controlled the account and she alone could make withdrawals.’ She intended to retain control of the account during her life and that upon her death it should become payable to the defendant. She gave the bank book to his mother ‘about’ November, 1933, and the latter gave it to the defendant. ‘Miss Conway had no bank book except the * * * [one] in question.’ After November, 1933, she made eight withdrawals from the account and gave the sums withdrawn to the defendant.
Notwithstanding the form of the rule to the master, instead of confining his reports to the facts found by him (see Jameson v. Hayes, 250 Mass. 302, 306, 145 N.E. 457) he has woven into the report certain evidence, stating that the defendant testified that Miss Conway asked him ‘at least one hundred times * * * to ‘accept the bank book trust which * * * [she] created in 1926’; that he told her he did not wish to * * * that she showed him the book a number of times and asked him to check it to see if everything was correct; that he saw the second advertisement of the lost bank book * * * that in October, 1933 she told him the book was lost again and that she wanted him to accept ‘the trust fund previously set up’ and he replied ‘All right * * *’ that on November 10, 1933, she asked him if his mother told him that she had left the bank book for him and that the money was his; that he thanked her; that the bank book had been in his home ever since; that he needed money from time to time after that; that he had asked her to go to the bank and withdraw money on eight occasions and she had done so and given the money to him.' The master also reported that the defendant's mother ‘testified that on a day in November, 1933, Miss Conway came to her house, took out her bank book and said, ‘I have this fixed now for Eddie-the bank book is his-this is Eddie's and when he comes home give it to him and put it in a safe place’; that she replied, ‘I'll put it in a safe place and when he comes home I will give it to him’; that she did so when he came home.'
In argument the plaintiff has stressed other facts which the master could have found on the testimony of the defendant and his mother as to those conversations, but which the master was not obliged to find. His sole findings are those that have been stated already. He made no ultimate findings on the questions whether a valid gift of the deposit had been made by Miss Conway to the defendant or whether she had created a valid trust thereof. The conclusions of the judge implied in his decree are that, upon the specific findings of the master, she did neither. It is our duty to draw the proper inferences from the findings of the master unaffected by the conclusions of the judge. Robinson v. Pero, 272 Mass. 482, 484, 172 N.E. 599.
‘It is settled * * * that an oral gift of a * * * savings bank book, * * * and personal property of like nature,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blanchette v. Blanchette
...a trust. Lukey v. Parks, 279 Mass. 244, 248, 181 N.E. 200; Greeley v. O'Connor, 294 Mass. 527, 533, 2 N.E.2d 471. See Greeley v. Flynn, 310 Mass. 23, 27--28, 36 N.E.2d 394. Compare Reynolds v. Reynolds, 325 Mass. 257, 261, 90 N.E.2d 338. Or the account may have been established merely for c......
-
Roberts v. Roberts
...totally at the disposal of the settlor once received, should make no difference").8 We also note our opinion in Greeley v. Flynn, 310 Mass. 23, 36 N.E.2d 394 (1941). In that case "the settlor was herself the trustee and had every power of control, including the right to withdraw principal f......
-
In re Snider Bros., Inc.
...v. Montana, 347 Mass. 29, 196 N.E.2d 202 (1963); Mikshis v. Palionis, 345 Mass. 316, 187 N.E.2d 147 (1963); and, Greeley v. Flynn, 310 Mass. 23, 36 N.E.2d 394 (1941). The donor acting as trustee in a voluntary trust can retain use, possession, and control of the trust property without affec......
-
Berger v. Berger
...by the cestui, in order to perfect * * * [its] creation.' O'Hara v. O'Hara, 291 Mass. 75, 78, 195 N.E. 909, 911; Greeley v. Flynn, 310 Mass. 23, 27, 36 N.E.2d 394. Day Trust Co. v. Malden Savings Bank, 328 Mass. 576, 578-579, 105 N.E.2d 363. The notice to the beneficiary is regarded as 'nec......