Macy v. Williams

• Court: Superior Court of New York
• Writing for the Court: Dykman, J.
• Citation: Macy v. Williams, 8 N.Y.S. 658 (N.Y. Super Ct. 1890)
• Decision Date: 12 February 1890
• Parties: Macy v. Williams et al

8 N.Y.S. 658

Macy v. Williams et al

Supreme Court of New York, General Term, Second Department

February 12, 1890

Appeal from judgment on report of referee.

Action by John W. Macy as trustee of Eleanor Hildick, against David T. Williams and Isaac M. Hunt, as executors of Benjamin L Guion, deceased. Judgment for plaintiff on report of referee and defendants appeal.

Judgment affirmed, without costs.

Woodward & Buckley, (Sidney S. Harris, of counsel,) for appellants.

Charles N Judson, for respondent.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ. All concur

OPINION

Dykman, J.

This action is instituted by the plaintiff, as trustee of Eleanor Hildick, against the executors of Benjamin L. Guion, deceased. The trial was before a referee, who found the following facts: Benjamin L. Guion, in his life-time, opened accounts with two banks for savings, and made deposits in each, which he declared were in trust for Eleanor Hildick, his grandniece. When such accounts were opened and the deposits made, Guion received from each of the banks a pass-book containing a statement that the accounts were with him as trustee for Eleanor Hildick. After such pass-books were received by Guion, he left them for a considerable time, but they were subsequently returned to him, and he drew out all the money so deposited during his life-time for his own benefit. Guion died in March, 1887, and the defendants are the executors of his last will and testament. The plaintiff has been appointed the trustee of Eleanor Hildick, and he commenced this action against the defendants, as such executors, for the recovery of the money so drawn from the savings banks, upon the theory that they belonged to Eleanor Hildick when they were drawn out by Guion, and that he was her trustee in respect to such funds, and received the same in that capacity. There is no material dispute respecting the facts, and the findings of the referee are well sustained by the testimony. Upon such facts, the conclusion of law of the referee was that the transaction between the banks and Guion constituted a valid declaration of trust, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount drawn from the banks by Guion in his life-time. Judgment was entered upon the report of the referee in favor of the plaintiff, from which the defendants have appealed to this court.

The testimony in this action developed a case stronger in favor of the plaintiff than the case of Martin v. Funk, 75 N.Y. 134, where it was held that the transaction was a valid and sufficient declaration of trust and passed the title to the deposits, the depositor constituting herself trustee; and the retention of the pass-books, which were simply the vouchers for the property, must be deemed to have been as trustee, and was not inconsistent with the completeness of the gift. In the case of Boone v. Bank, 84 N.Y. 83, the court of appeals, in...