Hawkins v. Thackston
| Decision Date | 11 January 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 16819,16819 |
| Parties | HAWKINS v. THACKSTON et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, J. G. Leatherwood, Greenville, for appellants.
Price & Poag, Greenville, for respondents.
The late W. C. Hawkins, a childless widower, sold his farm near the City of Greenville to Furman University, to become a part of its new campus, for which he received a large cash consideration. Very near him there lived, in the same home, his nephew, Ansel Hawkins, and his unmarried niece, Susan Hawkins. The last named is the respondent in this action. After the death of the wife of decedent about 1943, he was frequently in the home of Ansel and Susan and regularly had two meals a day there. During the first several years he did not pay board but during the last couple of years he did pay for his meals. Beginning in 1948 he was ill from time to time and intermittently a patient in the hospital at the nearby town of Travelers Rest. In October 1950 he entered the hospital and was continuously a patient there until his death on March 28, 1951, at the age of seventy-eight. However, he was not confined to his bed until shortly before he died, being up and about the hospital and well-preserved mentally.
On February 17, 1951, at his request Mr. Hawkins was taken by Ansel and Susan in the latter's automobile to the office of Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Association in Greenville where he deposited his check on a Greenville bank for $10,000, which he had signed beforehand. For the deposit there was issued a passbook which contained the Savings Share Certificate of the Association; it recited that, quoting, 'W. C. Hawkins or Miss Susan Hawkins is a member of the * * * Association and holds a Savings Share Account,' in the amount of $10,000, dated February 17, 1951. It bore the following notation: 'Always bring or mail this book with each transaction.' It was explained to the depositors by an employee of the Association that either of them might draw upon the deposit; and Mr. Hawkins said to Susan on the return trip to the hospital, in the presence of Ansel, that he only wanted the interest. (There was no withdrawal.) Both signed signature cards, with their addresses and other information required by the Association. Susan had previously visited the office of the latter at her uncle's request. The passbook was first kept by decedent with his other valuable papers, loose in a traveling bag in his hospital room; Susan later furnished a lockbox in which the papers, including the passbook, were kept, and the box in the traveling bag.
The nurse who cared for the decedent at night during the last weeks of his life testified that he slept poorly and talked to her a great deal. She testified to a conversation between them to the effect that decedent said that some of his nieces visited him at the hospital who had never been to his home and he suspected that they thought he would soon die and they wanted his money; she asked if he thought any niece or nephew was more sincere than the others and he replied that he knew that if he had nothing Susan would do as much for him anyway; and the nurse suggested that he should take care of her, whereupon he said that he had, and showed her the passbook. This witness also said that Susan visited the decedent daily at the hospital.
The manager of the hospital was a great-niece of decedent. She wrote checks for him to sign for his hospital and other expenses, which he did until the week before his death. He showed her the passbook when he returned from Greenville with it and she frequently saw it in his papers. It was at her suggestion that Susan brought the lockbox in which the papers were put. It was locked and the witness kept the key so that she could go in and out for the purpose of drawing checks. The decedent instructed her, in effect, that in case of his death, the box should be taken to a designated attorney's office. After his death the witness consulted Susan and gave her the box, but the witness kept the key and together they later went to the attorney's office and delivered the box, which contained decedent's papers, including the passbook, and the key. Decedent had two checking accounts in separate banks, one in Greenville and the other in Travelers Rest, but all of his checks, including that to the Savings & Loan Association, were drawn upon the larger, Greenville bank account.
The action was for judgment that respondent is the owner of the fund and was contested by the executor and other legatees of the will of the decedent, which was made in 1949 and by the terms of which the entire estate was given in equal shares to his nephews and nieces, of whom there are over forty. The evidence was taken before the trial court which held by order dated March 15, 1953, that respondent, as the survivor of the joint depositors, is the owner of the deposit and the interest which has since accrued upon it. The executor and other nephews, representing the legatees as a class, have appealed. The order cites the statutes which are sections 8-171 and 8-602 of the Code of 1952 which relate to joint deposits, the latter particularly in Loan Associations, and is as follows:
'When any certificate or share of stock has been issued by any building and loan association or Federal savings and loan association transacting business in this State in the names of two persons, redeemable or payable to either, or payable to or redeemable by either or the survivor, such share or certificate may be paid to or redeemed by either of such persons, whether one be living or not, and the receipt or acquittance of such association by the person so paid or by the person who redeemed such share or certificate shall be a valid and sufficient release or discharge for any and all payments, redemptions or repurchases made of such share or certificate of stock.'
The reason for the conclusion of the order as stated in it is that the nature of the deposit and the provisions of the statute create a presumption that the parties intended that it should be paid to the survivor as owner, and the presumption was not rebutted by the evidence adduced here but, on the contrary, was strengthened by it.
The law applicable to the present facts, derived from a great many decisions, is outlined...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Stanley v. Sandiford
...272 S.C. 224, 250 S.E.2d 334 (1978); Gilford v. South Carolina National Bank, 257 S.C. 374, 186 S.E.2d 258 (1972); Hawkins v. Thackston, 224 S.C. 445, 79 S.E.2d 714 (1954). However, in both Gilford and Hawkins, the Court found that in addition to a contractual agreement between the bank and......
-
Wagner v. Wagner
...78, 71 N.W.2d 723; In re Staver's Estate, 218 Wis. 114, 260 N.W. 655; In re Lewis Estate, 194 Miss. 480, 13 So.2d 20; Hawkins v. Thackston, 224 S.C. 445, 79 S.E.2d 714. In Barbour, we said the controlling consideration is the intention of the original depositor. 'Whether or not the original......
-
Trotter v. First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n
...demonstrate the distinction between the rights between the parties and the contractual agreement with the bank. See Hawkins v. Thackston, 224 S.C. 445, 79 S.E.2d 714 (1954); Johnson v. Herrin, 272 S.C. 224, 250 S.E.2d 334 (1978); Clinkscales v. Clinkscales, 275 S.C. 308, 270 S.E.2d 715 (198......
-
Barbour v. First Citizens Nat. Bank of Watertown
...or their survivor. In that event the relationship is in the nature of a contract for the benefit of a third party. Hawkins v. Thackston, 224 S.C. 445, 79 S.E.2d 714. The bank is authorized by statute to pay out the funds according to the deposit agreement. SDC 6.0414 'Whenever a deposit is ......