Parkinson v. Wood, 44.

• Decision Date: 16 February 1948
• Docket Number: No. 44.,44.
• Citation: 30 N.W.2d 813,320 Mich. 143
• Parties: PARKINSON v. WOOD.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

320 Mich. 143

30 N.W.2d 813

PARKINSON

v.WOOD.

No. 44.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 16, 1948.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Branch County, in Chancery; Theo T. jacobs, judge.

Suit by Clara Parkinson, in her individual capacity, and as administratrix of the estate of George Parkinson, deceased, against Frances M. Wood to have certain United States Savings bonds or proceeds be decreed a part of the assets of the estate of deceased wherein defendant filed a crossbill for delivery of the bonds. From and adverse decree, plaintiff appeals.

Decree affirmed.

Before the Entire Bench.

James M. Cleary, of Detroit (Arthur G. Lyon, of Coldwater, of counsel), for appellant.

Harold J. Ashdown of Coldwater, for appellee.

NORTH, Justice.

This suit in chancery was brought by plaintiff, Clare Parkinson, both in her individual right and as administratrix of the estate of her husband, George Parkinson, deceased. Briefly stated, the only relief sought by plaintiff as to which the record contains any semblance of merit, is that certain U. S. Savings bonds purchased by the deceased but payable to defendant, his daughter by a former marriage, or that the proceeds of the bonds, be decreed to be part of the assets of the George Parkinson estate. Plaintiff's claim to relief as stated in the prayer of her amended bill is: ‘that the use of the funds amounting to $3487.50 for the purchase of the bonds in the name of Frances M. Wood, was a fraud against the rights of Clara Parkinson * * *.'

By her cross-bill defendant sought delivery to her of the bonds by plaintiff on the theory that defendant was the owner of these bonds. Defendant and cross-plaintiff had decree in the circuit court. Plaintiff has appealed.

The factual background of the alleged fraud upon which plaintiff relies is as follows. In May 1943 George Parkinson sold a farm for $7,706.30. He agreed with plaintiff that if she would join in the conveyance (thus releasing her right of dower) the proceeds from the sale would be depositedin their names in a joint bank account. The down payment of $2,395 was so deposited June 12, 1943 by plaintiff, and about a month thereafter Mr. Parkinson signed the card held by the bank incident to the joint account. The balance of the purchase price, $5,311.30, was paid to the bank cashier for Mr. Parkinson. It was never deposited in the joint account. Instead at various times between July 27 and August 14, 1943, Mr. Parkinson purchased U. S. Savings bonds in the amount of $4,650 for which he paid $3,487.50, evidently out of the money he had received for the purchase of his farm. Each of the bonds so purchased was made payable to defendant, Frances M. Wood. The bonds were placed in a safety deposit box rented in 1927 by Mr. Parkinson and to which he and defendant each had a key. No on except defendant and her father had access to the box; but defendant did not open the box during the time the bonds were deposited therein. After the death of Mr. Parkinson these bonds were found in the safety deposit box.

Plaintiff claims that Mr. Parkinson perpetrated a fraud on her by securing her signature to the farm deed whereby she released her right of dower under their agreement that the purchase money received should be deposited in a joint bank account in their names, when, in fact, Mr. Parkinson did not so deposit the final payment, but used $3,487.50 thereof to purchase the bonds payable to the defendant. Plaintiff further claims that since defendant gave no consideration for the bonds and the deceased did not surrender possession or control of the bonds, they should be decreed to be plaintiff's property or assets of Mr. Parkinson's estate, which will be shared equally by plaintiff and defendant, he having died intestate March 12, 1944. In connection with the above it is plaintiff's claim that because of lack of delivery of the bonds a valid gift inter vivos was not consummated.

It is not claimed that the estate of Mr. Parkinson would be insolvent if the bonds in suit are not found to be included in the assets. In so far as plaintiff asserts right of recovery on the ground of fraud perpetrated upon her by Mr. Parkinson her claim for resultant damages would not give the equity court jurisdiction. As to that phase of her claim plaintiff would have an adequate remedy at law, and recovery could not be had in this suit in equity. The trial court so held. See Morten v. Zevalkink, 304 Mich. 572, 8 N.W.2d 642,9 N.W.2d 913.

Our review de novo of this record brings the conclusion that decision can be and should be based on the sole question as to whether, under the circumstances of this case, title of these U. S. Savings bonds passed to defendant. As appears from numerous judicial decisions, gifts of U. S. Savings bonds are held to be valid under circumstances as to actual delivery which, if the gifts had been of ordinary choses in action, would not be sustained. This has come about in consequence of the provisions of the Federal law governing the issuance and payment of U. S. Savings bonds.

While the question of validity of a gift on the ground of nondelivery was not involved, none-the-less because of the statement of the reasons in consequence of which gifts of U. S. Savings bonds are sustained in the absence of delivery to the donee is so plainly set forth, we quote in full the headnotes in Harvey v. Rackliffe, 141 M. 169, 41 A.2d 455, 161 A.L.R. 296:

‘Treasury Regulations in respect to the transfer of United States war savings bonds are a proper exercise of the power given to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Congress; and they accordingly have the force and effect of Federal law.

‘Under the provision of the Federal constitution Congress has...