Martin v. Munroe
| Citation | 89 A. 319,121 Md. 679 |
| Parties | MARTIN v. MUNROE et al. |
| Decision Date | 02 December 1913 |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County, in Equity; Jas. R Brashears, Judge.
Action by John B. Martin against James M. Munroe, administrator of the estate of Louisa May Martin, deceased, and others. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, BURKE, THOMAS, PATTISON URNER, and STOCKBRIDGE, JJ.
Jerry L. Smith and Nicholas H. Green, both of Annapolis, for appellant. Robert Moss, of Annapolis (Robert G. Moss, of Annapolis, on the brief), for appellees.
In January, 1894, an account was opened in the Annapolis Savings Institution in the name of Louisa May Martin. At the time of her death in November, 1909, the balance credited was $6,030.50. The ownership of this fund is the subject of the present litigation. The appellant, who is the surviving husband of the decedent, claims the deposits on the theory that they were made exclusively with his individual money that the account was always subject to his control, and that no gift of the funds was ever intended. This claim is resisted by the two children of the appellant and of his deceased wife, who assert that the account represents in large part their mother's own savings from a business conducted by her for many years, and that any contributions which their father may have made to the deposits must be regarded as completed gifts. Shortly after the death of his wife the appellant withdrew the money under an order which he signed in her name. He later paid it over to the appellee administrator, who now holds it subject to the determination of the question of title. A bill in equity against the other parties interested was then filed by the appellant, claiming the ownership of the fund upon the grounds stated. The court below was unable to sustain the claim upon the proof in the case, and the record is before us upon appeal from a decree dismissing the bill.
There are exceptions to certain portions of the testimony, and we shall accordingly recite only such facts as are established by what we regard as the weight of the competent evidence.
When the account now in dispute was opened in 1894, the appellant was a harness dealer, and his wife kept a small confectionary store. They withdrew from these enterprises in the course of a few years, and since 1897 Mr. Martin has been conducting a saloon, while Mrs. Martin was engaged in the work of providing sandwiches and other edibles for sale at the bar. The part of the business in which his wife was thus interested was treated as her independent undertaking, and the profits, amounting at times to as much as $15 per week, were regularly set apart as belonging to her individually. Her savings from this source during the long period indicated must have been considerable, as she was a frugal and thrifty woman, and her husband was able to support the family without aid from her earnings. The evidence shows that Mrs. Martin could not read or write. The account in the Annapolis Savings Institution was opened in her name by her husband, and her signature was written by him in the identification book. She was not present at the bank on that or any other occasion. The sums deposited from time to time were usually taken to the bank by Mr. Martin or by a messenger. The appellant's son, John F. Martin, testified that he was occasionally sent there by his father to deposit some of his mother's savings. There were a number of withdrawals from the account, and these were invariably made by checks drawn to the order of Mrs. Martin, and signed and indorsed by her husband in her name. There is no suggestion as to the existence of any other assets representing her accumulated profits, and we can have no doubt upon the record before us that they were placed in the Savings Institution.
The appellant had an account in his own name in the Farmers' National Bank of Annapolis. It is shown by the proof that checks on this account were drawn by Mr. Martin to the order of his wife, and were indorsed by him in her name, for deposit to her credit in the other bank. According to the testimony of the son, John F. Martin, some of these checks were given for his mother's savings which his father had held for a time. But the aggregate of the checks drawn by the appellant on the Farmer's National Bank, and deposited to the credit of Mrs. Martin in the Annapolis Savings Institution, apparently exceeded the total amounts she could reasonably be supposed to have derived from her business. To the extent of this excess, the deposits so entered may have been intended as repayments of the withdrawals to which we have referred, or they may have been made simply as gifts...
To continue reading
Request your trial