Parkman v. Suffolk Sav. Bank

• Decision Date: 27 February 1890
• Citation: 151 Mass. 218,24 N.E. 43
• Parties: PARKMAN v. SUFFOLK SAV. BANK et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

151 Mass. 218

24 N.E. 43

PARKMAN v. SUFFOLK SAV. BANK et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 27, 1890

COUNSEL

J.A. Maxwell, for plaintiff.

F. Burke, for claimant.

OPINION

HOLMES, J.

The fact that the savings bank book designates the plaintiff's intestate trustee for the claimant is not conclusive of the existence of a trust. Brabrook v. Bank, 104 Mass. 228, 232; Clark v. Clark, 108 Mass. 522; Powers v. Institution, 124 Mass. 377; Sherman v. Bank, 138 Mass. 581, 582; Alger v. Bank, 146 Mass. 418, 422, 15 N.E. 916. See, also, Robinson v. Ring, 72 Me. 140; Marcy v. Amazeen, 61 N.H. 131. As it is a well-known practice for people who have deposited in their own names the full amount allowed to open new accounts ostensibly as trustees for others, but in fact for their own benefit, evidence that the intestate had deposited the full amount allowed to his own use was admissible as offering a possible explanation of the form adopted other than the intenton to make a gift. Brabrook v. Bank. ubi supra; Gerrish v. Institution, 128 Mass. 159; Northrop v. Hale, 72 Me. 275, 277.

If the judge was satisfied that the money deposited did not belong to the claimant, and that the claimant was never informed of the deposit, the cases first cited show that it hardly needed the explanation of the form of deposit to allow, if not to require, him to reject the claim, and to find for the plaintiff.

Exceptions overruled.