Ladner v. Ladner
Decision Date | 13 February 1922 |
Docket Number | 21976 |
Citation | 128 Miss. 75,90 So. 593 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | LADNER et al. v. LADNER et al |
1 TRUSTS. Parol trust held created in fund deposited in savings bank.
Where one makes a time deposit in a savings bank to the order of himself and another, and at the time of making the deposit informs the cashier of the bank that it is his desire to place this money in the bank in the name of the other party but so that he, the depositor, can draw the interest while he lives, and that he wishes the money to go to the other person at his death, the facts and circumstances attending this deposit show that it was the intention of the depositor and that as a matter of fact he did thereby create a perfected parol trust in this fund; the beneficiary thereof being the other person whose name appears upon the deposit slip.
2 TRUSTS. Declaration of depositor in savings bank held to pass principal to beneficiary in praesenti to be enjoyed in futuro.
In such case by this declaration the equitable title to the principal passed to the cestui que trust, vesting in praesenti, to be enjoyed in futuro, upon the death of the depositor.
HON. V. A. GRIFFITH, Chancellor.
APPEAL from chancery court of Harrison count, HON. V. A. GRIFFITH, Chancellor.
Suit by M. L. Ladner and others against Arthemise Ladner, as administratrix of Alfred Ladner, deceased, and others. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendants appeals. Affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
Mize & Mize and C. B. Adam, for appellants.
Gex & Waller, for appellees.
The appellees (five in number) by this proceeding in chancery seek to establish their ownership of certain funds deposited in bank by their father, now deceased. The defendant Mrs. Arthemise Ladner claims the funds as administratrix of the estate of her husband. In its answer the bank offers to deliver the certificates of deposit into court, or to any one who the court may determine is legally entitled to them. The theory of the bill is that either by the deposits a gift causa mortis was made by the deceased to the complainants, or that his statements, acts, and intention, when he made the deposits, constituted a parol trust, of which these complainants are the beneficiaries therein.
The facts are simple and uncontradicted, and are as follows: Alfred Ladner, father of appellees and husband of Mrs. Arthemise Ladner, died intestate, leaving the complainants and his widow as his heirs at law. He had been twice married, and the complainants (appellees) were the issue of his first marriage. About a year and a half before his death he had on deposit in two banks about fourteen thousand dollars. He had already given his wife a home, and, being over eighty years old, he conceived the idea of depositing this money in the two banks with whom he did business, so that during his lifetime he could enjoy the interest from the money and his children each get the deposit of two thousand dollars at his death. Accordingly, five separate deposits were made in the defendant bank, each of two thousand dollars, and two deposits of similar character in another bank. These certificates of deposit are all alike, and except for the name of the child all read like the following:
These deposits had been renewed three times prior to the death of Alfred Ladner. At each renewal he drew out the accrued interest. Prior to making these deposits, according to the testimony of his widow, the deceased told her that he had given her the place (meaning residence) and was going to give the money to the children. She did not go with him to the bank. After this conversation with his wife the deceased went to the bank and consulted Mr. Cazeneuve (its vice president and cashier), his warm personal friend of many years' standing. Mr. Cazeneuve testified that Mr. Ladner told him:
These certificates Mr. Ladner left at the bank, for safekeeping. Mr. Cazeneuve further testified that the deceased had the right to draw out the money whenever he wished, but that the children could not do so. He further testified as follow That Mr. Ladner told him at the time he made the deposit that when he died he wanted the children to have the money, but that as long as he lived he wanted to collect the interest on it, and that it was their understanding that he was to keep this money on deposit in the bank and draw on the interest as long as he lived. Every...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Christensen v. Ogden State Bank
... ... 228, 78 P. 645; Cahlan v ... Bank , 11 Cal.App. 533, 105 P. 765; Logan v ... Ryan , 68 Cal.App. 448, 229 P. 993; Ladner ... v. Ladner , 128 Miss. 75, 90 So. 593; George ... v. Daly , 83 Cal.App. 684, 257 P. 171; Negaunee ... Nat'l Bank v. La Beau, Adm'r , ... ...
- Garraway v. State ex rel. Dale
-
Dyste v. Farmers' & Mechanics' Sav. Bank of Minneapolis, s. 27723-27725.
...218 N. W. 739;Kelly v. Beers, 194 N. Y. 49, 86 N. E. 980,128 Am. St. Rep. 543;Raferty v. Reilly, 41 R. I. 47, 102 A. 711;Ladner v. Ladner, 128 Miss. 75, 90 So. 593;Blick v. Cockins, 252 Pa. 56, 97 A. 125;Dunn v. Houghton (N. J. Ch.) 51 A. 71;Kaufman v. Edwards, 92 N. J. Eq. 554, 113 A. 598.......
-
Clark v. Young
...of a trust as discussed in the Mississippi case of Ladner v. Ladner, 128 Miss. 75, 90 So. 593. Though the discussion of this theory in the Ladner case is very forceful, yet I prefer the theory as presenting the stronger view. I am persuaded the majority opinion gives too little importance t......