Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank v. Vlack

Decision Date11 December 1923
Docket NumberNo. 15444.,15444.
Citation141 N.E. 546,310 Ill. 185
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
PartiesILLINOIS TRUST & SAVINGS BANK v. VAN VLACK.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Bill of interpleader by the Illinois Trust & Savings Bank against Philip Arthur Van Vlack, executor of Mary J. Moser, deceased, and Agnes L. Alton, to determine ownership of a deposit. From a decree in favor of Agnes L. Alton affirmed by the Appellate Court (228 Ill. App. 573) the executor appeals.

Affirmed.

Thompson, J., dissenting.

Appeal from First Branch Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Hugo M. Friend, Judge.

George C. Otto, of Chicago, for appellant.

Busby, Weber, Miller & Donovan and Warner H. Robinson, all of Chicago, for appellee.

DUNN, J.

This was a bill of interpleader filed in the circuit court of Cook county by the Illinois Trust & Savings Bank against Philip Arthur Van Vlack, as executor of the will of Mary J. Moser, and Agnes L. Alton, to determine which of the defendants was entitled to the sum of $5,855.63 on deposit with the complainant. The court decreed that the deposit belongs to Agnes L. Alton and that the complainant pay it to her. The executor appealed, the Appellate Court affirmed the decree, and a further appeal has been granted to the executor.

There is no question of fact. On November 24, 1920, Mary J. Moser, a widow, living with her sister, Agnes L. Alton, in Winnetka, deposited $2,859.54 of her own money in a savings account with the Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, and both Mrs. Moser and Mrs. Alton signed an agreement as follows:

‘The undersigned hereby assent and agree to all the by-laws, rules and regulations of Illinois Trust & Savings Bank governing its savings accounts, with the same effect as though we had signed the signature book containing said by-laws; and we further agree that all deposits now or hereafter made to the credit of savings account No. 815,318 with said bank, or any part thereof, and any interest thereon, shall be payable to the undersigned jointly or severally and to or upon the order of either of the undersigned, whether the other be living or not, and the receipt of the person or persons so paid shall be a valid and sufficient discharge and acquittance to said Illinois Trust & Savings Bank for any and all such payments so made. It being intended and agreed that said savings account shall be payable to and upon the joint and several orders of the undersigned or either of them, or to the survivor of them.’

This agreement was retained by the bank, which issued a passbook with the following heading:

‘Dr. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, Chicago,

‘In account with Mary J. Moser or Agnes L. Alton, who make all deposits subject to the by-laws of this bank, numbers X to XIX inclusive, and XXI, which will be found in this book and are made a part of this deposit contract.’

This heading was followed by the date and the amount of the deposit. Subsequent deposits were entered in the book, added to the previous deposits, and the whole amount was shown in the proper column. Mrs. Moser made further deposits, interest was credited semiannually, and the total amount of the deposit on July 1, 1922, was $5,855.63.

Article 13 of the by-laws of the bank was as follows:

‘The bank shall be released and discharged by payment in any manner authorized by its by-laws. Money deposited for savings, and the interest thereon, may be withdrawn by the depositor personally or by written order if the bank have the signature of the depositor in the signature book or on a signature card, or to or upon the order of the person to whose order the deposit may be subject, or by authority of a letter of attorney, duly authenticated; but no money orders shall be payable on account of such deposits unless the depositor's bank book be produced in order that such payment may be entered therein, unless the depositor shall prove to the satisfaction of the officers of the bank that such book has been lost, stolen or destroyed, and in such case a written discharge, with indemnity satisfactory to the bank against loss or damage for the payment made without the production of such bank book, shall be given by the depositor to the bank.’

No money was drawn from this account by either Mrs. Moser or Mrs. Alton. Mrs. Moser had a checking account at the Winnetka State Bank, and on December 17, 1921, she and Mrs. Alton together went to this bank and procured a safety deposit box. Mrs. Moser, told Hale, the cashier of the bank, that the box was to be made out in the names of Agnes Alton and Mary J. Moser; that its contents were for either one-that is, whoever came to the box had the right to go in any time without the presence of the other. Thereupon the names of Mrs. Moser and Mrs. Alton were entered in the book kept for that purpose and the charge of $3 for one year's rent was paid by Mrs. Moser. The key of the box was handed to Mrs. Moser and taken by her to the home of Mrs. Alton, where they both lived. Mrs. Alton's daughter, Jean, who has since married and is now Mrs. Coolidge, was then unmarried and living with her mother in her home. At Christmas Mrs. Moser gave to her niece, Mrs. Coolidge, a trunk, and had a conversation with her about the safety deposit box and the key to it. Mrs. Moser had a chest in the closet of her room. She showed Mrs. Coolidge where she kept the key to the chest and took the key and opened the chest, showed Mrs. Coolidge some keys in the chest, and told her that one of them was the key to the trunk, and one of them, which had a tag showing what it was, was the key to the safety deposit box in the Winnetka State Bank. Mrs. Moser told Mrs. Coolidge that her mother (Mrs. Alton) had possession of this safety deposit box at any time, and that the key was for her mother as well as for Mrs. Moser to get into the box. Soon after this Mrs. Moser went south and after about six weeks' absence returned to Mrs. Alton's house, where she lived until she went to the hospital, just before Easter. She was in the hospital four or five weeks and died on May 23, 1922. She made a will in May, 1920, to which she executed a codicil on May 19, 1922. These instruments disposed of her estate, slightly in excess of $200,000, principally among her relatives, including Mrs. Alton. The appellant, who is also her nephew, obtained the key to the safety deposit box from Mrs. Alton. It was opened and found to contain some jewelry, silver tableware, and other articles belonging to Mrs. Moser, as well as her will and the passbook of the Illinois Trust & Savings Bank showing the account in question. This passbook was in an envelope sealed up, across the face of which was written in the handwriting of Mrs. Moser, ‘Property of Mary J. Moser.’ The last deposit was made on January 17, 1922, except a credit of interest made in July, 1922.

The question for determination is whether upon the death of Mrs. Moser the deposit was the property of her estate or of Mrs. Alton. The appellant contends that joint tenancies in personal property as well as real estate were abolished by the statute of 1821 (Laws 1821, p. 14) concerning partitions and joint rights and obligations, and he refers to the case of Hay v. Bennett, 153 Ill. 271, 38 N. E. 645, in which it was held that the common-law rule of survivorship in respect to personal property jointly owned does not prevail in this state. In the recent case of Erwin v. Felter, 283 Ill. 36, 119 N. E. 926, L. R. A. 1918E, 776, it was said that ‘a joint tenancy is not confined to real estate but may exist in personal property,’ without mention of this decision or the statute, which were not relied upon or referred to by counsel in argument or mentioned even in the petition for rehearing. It was not intended to overrule the decision or disregard the statute, but the statute was regarded as not applicable to the contracts involved in that case. It was intended to hold that the right of survivorship stipulated in the certificates of deposit as an essential part of them was not unlawful, and the statement that a joint tenancymay exist in personal property should not have been made without qualification or limitation. The certificates issued at the time each deposit was made evidenced the intention of the parties that Mrs. Rusk and her daughter should have a common or joint interest in the sums deposited, and a contract that either should have the right to withdraw such sums as she might choose during their joint lives, that the survivor should have the whole, and that the bank should make payments in accordance with this agreement. Whether this constituted a technical joint estate or not, it was held that the contract was not unlawful but would be enforced.

In the case of Chippendale v. North Adams Savings Bank, 222 Mass. 499, 111 N. E. 371, cited in Erwin v. Felter, supra (a case of a deposit payable to either of two persons or the survivor), the court said:

‘The new deposit in the Hoosac Savings Bank by its terms was a deposit to be paid during the lives of Williams and of Mrs. Worthington or either of them as they should call for the deposit or a part of it, and the balance (not withdrawn during their joint lives) was to be paid to the survivor of them. Such a contract between a depositor or depositors and the savings bank is a valid contract. If Mr. Williams had gone to the savings bank with a sum of money he could have made such a contract with the savings bank. What took place was the equivalent of that by reason of a novation with respect to the account theretofore on deposit in Williams' name alone. The case therefore which we have to decide is not a case of an attempted gift of property but is a case where Williams the depositor through a novation had made a new contract with the savings bank, by virtue of which either he or Mrs. Worthington could draw such sums as either in their discretion chose during their joint lives, and the balance was to be withdrawn by, and so was to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • O'Brien v. Biegger
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • October 19, 1943
    ...supra, 218 Wis. 114, 260 N.W. 655;Commonwealth Trust Co. v. Grobel, 93 N.J.Eq. 78, 114 A. 353;Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. Van Vlack, 310 Ill. 185, 141 N.E. 546;Perry v. Leveroni, 252 Mass. 390, 147 N.E. 826, 827;Metropolitan Bank v. Murphy, 82 Md. 314, 33 A. 640, 641,31 L.R.A. 454, 51 ......
  • O'Brien v. Biegger
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • October 19, 1943
    ... ... 1217) in a Humboldt bank, ... the sum of $5,000, which she had received from her ... put the same trust in her husband in her account, that he put ... in her ... 275; Deal's Adm'r v ... Merchants' & Mechanics' Sav. Bank, 120 Va. 297, ... 91 S.E. 135, L.R.A. 1917C, 548; ... v. Grobel, ... 93 N.J.Eq. 78, 114 A. 353; Illinois Trust & Savings Bank ... v. Van Vlack, 310 Ill. 185, 141 ... ...
  • Ball v. The Mercantile Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 19, 1927
    ... ... purely for the protection of the bank in which such deposit ... was made and does not attempt to settle or ... 857; Erwin v. Felter, 283 ... Ill. 36, 119 N.E. 926; Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v ... Van Vlack, 310 Ill. 185, 141 N.E. 546; Reder ... ...
  • Dyste v. Farmers' & Mechanics' Sav. Bank of Minneapolis, s. 27723-27725.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • February 28, 1930
    ...252 Mass. 390, 147 N. E. 826;Erwin v. Felter, 283 Ill. 36, 119 N. E. 926, L. R. A. 1918E, 776;Illinois T. & S. Bank v. Van Vlack, 310 Ill. 185, 141 N. E. 546;Deal's Adm'r v. Merchants' Savings Bank, 120 Va. 297, 91 S. E. 135, L. R. A. 1917C, 548;Wisner v. Wisner, 82 W. Va. 9, 95 S. E. 802. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT