McMahon v. Newtown Sav. Bank

• Decision Date: 22 November 1895
• Citation: 67 Conn. 78,34 A. 709
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: McMAHON v. NEWTOWN SAV. BANK.

34 A. 709

67 Conn. 78

McMAHON

v. NEWTOWN SAV. BANK.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Nov. 22, 1895

Appeal from court of common pleas, Fairfield county; Curtis, Judge.

Action by Minnie McMahon, as administratrix, against the Newtown Savings Bank, to recover a deposit made by plaintiff's intestate. Defendant claimed to have paid the money to a son of the deceased, and that it had been given him by his mother in her lifetime. It was shown that she signed a writing, stating that she gave him the money, and also made the same statement verbally. The deposit was evidenced by a bank book, which deceased had left in the custody of a neighbor, and did not deliver to her son. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

William J. Beecher, for appellant.

Daniel Davenport, for appellee.

HAMERSLEY, J. Delivery of possession is essential to a donatio causa mortis, and, if the subject of the gift is a chose in action, there must be a delivery of evidences of the debt, or an assignment, or some act effective to vest the beneficial interest in the donee. Raymond v. Sellick, 10 Conn. 480, 484; Brown v. Brown, 18 Conn. 410, 416; Camp's Appeal, 36 Conn. 88, 92. The defendant proved nothing but declarations: "I want you to have the money. I give my son all my money in the savings bank. I want him to have it, and everything else." Such declarations, whether oral or written, do not, of themselves, consummate a valid gift. When Mrs. Reilly signed the writing in evidence, she did not transfer her savings bank account. Her title and beneficial interest remained unchanged. The declarations might prove an intent to make a gift causa mortis, as found by the trial court, but something more was necessary to give effect to that intention. There is no error in the judgment of the court of common pleas. The other judges concurred.