N.J. Title Guar. & Trust Co. v. Archibald

• Decision Date: 17 November 1919
• Docket Number: No. 78.,78.
• Citation: 108 A. 434
• Parties: NEW JERSEY TITLE GUARANTY & TRUST CO. v. ARCHIBALD et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

108 A. 434

NEW JERSEY TITLE GUARANTY & TRUST CO.

v. ARCHIBALD et al.

No. 78.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 17, 1919.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Bill for instruction, etc., by the New Jersey Title Guaranty & Trust Company, executor, etc., of Helena Metz, deceased against Louisa Archibald and others. From a decree of the Court of Chancery (107 Atl. 472) dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Gilbert Collins, of Jersey City, for appellant.

Ralph E. Cooper and David A. Newton, both of Jersey City, for respondent Archibald.

Campbell De Turck & West, of Hackensack, for respondent First Nat. Bank of Westwood.

TRENCHARD, J. This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a bill of complaint which was designed to settle the ownership of three bank accounts, one in the Bergen Branch of the New Jersey Title Guaranty & Trust Company, the other two in the First National Bank of Westwood, N. J.

The bill was filed by the New Jersey Title Guaranty & Trust Company as executor of Helena Metz, deceased, and avers, among other things, that it is "in doubt whether to claim as executor of said Helena Metz the said deposits," and prays that it "may be judicially determined to whom the said respective deposits belong," and "that complainant may be instructed as to its duty in the premises."

The defendants Louisa Archibald and the First National Bank of Westwood both moved to dismiss the bill upon the ground that it "appears by the bill of complaint that the said Louisa Archibald is the surviving joint tenant of the deposits referred to in said bill and therefore is entitled to said moneys."

The learned Vice Chancellor was of the opinion that the position of the defendants was well taken, and accordingly dismissed the bill.

We are of the opinion that the Vice Chancellor was right.

Looking first with respect to the deposits in the New Jersey Title Guaranty & Trust Company, we find the following averments in the bill of complaint: On November .30, 1915, "Helena Metz opened a special deposit account in the Bergen Branch of complainant, and deposited therein on that day $500."

On March 31, 1916, "the said Helena Metz with her daughter Louisa Archibald changed said account so that it should be with Helena Metz or Louisa Archibald, and deposited therein the sum of $175 in cash and $203.43 in checks drawn by said Helena Metz on an account kept by her in the main office of the complainant, which account was at that time closed out." At the same time "the said Helena Metz and the said Louisa Archibald signed and delivered to complainant a writing dated March 31, 1916, referring to said account by its number 2.809," which writing, among other-things, contained the following provisions: "This account and all money to be credited to it belongs to us as joint tenants and will be the absolute property of the survivor of us; cither and the survivor to draw."

At the time of the death of Helena Metz, there was to the credit of the account the sum of $1,031.31. The passbook evidencing such deposit was, after the death of Helena Metz, brought to complainant by Louisa Archibald, who asserted her right to withdraw the deposit for her own use.

With respect to whether or not cither of the parties ever drew any of the funds so deposited the bill is silent.

Now it may well be doubted whether, under such a bill, the complainant would in any event be entitled technically to the relief prayed for; but since all parties in interest are before the court, and have been heard, we assume that the bill will lie quia timet, and, in accordance with the wishes of the parties, proceed to determine the ownership of the deposits.

At the outset it is to be remarked that we are not here concerned with the class of cases where the rights of the parties depend in part, at least, upon the possession of a passbook without the possession of which the moneys could not be withdrawn. Here the rights of the parties depend upon the legal effect of the contract upon which the deposit was made and which contained no such provision.

It will be noticed that it does not appear clearly from the bill of complaint whether the moneys deposited belonged originally wholly to the mother, or in part to her and in part to the...