Murphy v. Bordwell

• Decision Date: 26 April 1901
• Docket Number: 12,475 - (59)
• Citation: 85 N.W. 915,83 Minn. 54
• Parties: M. L. MURPHY and Another v. ANNA BORDWELL
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

85 N.W. 915

83 Minn. 54

M. L. MURPHY and Another v. ANNA BORDWELL

Nos. 12,475 - (59)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

April 26, 1901

Action in the district court for Washington county against Anna Bordwell, defendant, and Lumberman's National Bank garnishee. The garnishee having disclosed a balance due defendant of $335.75, Mary Grant filed a complaint in intervention, in which she claimed to be the owner of the entire sum. Plaintiffs answered and the issues so framed were tried before Williston, J., who directed judgment for intervenor. From an order denying a motion for judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiffs appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Deposit in Name of Donor -- Gift -- No Transfer by Bank.

A gift of money in a bank, on deposit in the donor's name, may be legally executed by the person making such gift, although the credit of the deposit is not changed on the books of the bank, but continues in the name of the donor, provided, in the absence of fraud, there is some substantial act of the donor giving the donee the right to have such money absolutely.

Deposit in Name of Donor -- Power of Attorney.

A power of attorney to the donee from the owner of such deposit giving a right to draw the same from the bank in the name of the donor, but with a purpose not expressed in the instrument to confer dominion over such deposit to the donee, may effectuate such gift and consummate the same, under the facts as found in this case.

Evidence.

Evidence considered, and held to support the findings of the trial court, and that such findings support the conclusion that there was an executed gift from defendant to the claimant.

F. V. Comfort, for appellants.

H. H. Gillen, for respondent.

OPINION

LOVELY, J.

Plaintiffs recovered judgment against the defendant Anna Bord-well. Upon proceedings for garnishment in the district court for Washington county, a summons was served on the Lumberman's National Bank of Stillwater as garnishee, and made returnable before the clerk to secure for plaintiffs the benefit of property belonging to the defendant in the possession of the bank. At the time designated, plaintiffs appeared before the clerk, also the garnishee, by its cashier, who was sworn for the bank, and disclosed that there was in its possession, at the time of the garnishment, $335.75, deposited in the name of the defendant. At the same time Emma Grant, the claimant, also appeared, asserted a claim to this deposit, asked leave to file her complaint in intervention, and be allowed to make good the same to the fund in the hands of the garnishee. No further action was taken upon this request before the clerk. Afterwards, in proceedings before the district court, plaintiffs moved for judgment. The claimant also moved for leave to file complaint in intervention.

The court denied the motion for judgment, and permitted the claimant to intervene, which she did, alleging that at the time of the service of the garnishee summons she was the actual owner of the deposit. Plaintiffs answered, alleging that defendant was the owner of the same. Upon the issue thus made up a trial was had. Findings of fact and law in favor of the claimant were made by the trial court, in which it was found, in brief, that the funds in the bank had been deposited in the name of the defendant, and before the judgment had been rendered they had been donated by the defendant as a gift to the claimant, Emma Grant, who accepted the same, and was at the time of the garnishment the owner thereof. A motion for a new trial by plaintiffs was overruled, from which order plaintiffs appeal to this court.

The only question discussed under the assignments of error is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of fact to the effect that the money standing as a deposit in the name of defendant, Anna Bordwell, was in reality the property of the intervening claimant, and, if the evidence supports this finding, the order of the trial court should be sustained. The evidence reasonably tends to show that defendant, who was the mother of claimant and another daughter, had received by will from a deceased husband, the father of both daughters, the sum of $900; that defendant deposited the same in her own name in the Lumberman's National Bank, intending to donate the same to her daughters, upon the equitable consideration that it should be justly distributed between them on account of their relationship to their deceased father.

One of the daughters was an invalid, and defendant drew $500 of the deposit from the bank to use in taking her to a health resort. At that time the...