Ray v. Simmons

• Decision Date: 27 December 1875
• Citation: 11 R.I. 266
• Parties: MARIANNA RAY v. JOSIAH SIMMONS, Administrator.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

11 R.I. 266

MARIANNA RAY v. JOSIAH SIMMONS, Administrator.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

December 27, 1875

B deposited in a savings bank certain moneys in his own name as trustee for R. B. gave the bank-book to R., who returned it to B., in whose control it remained. B. was childless. R. was his step-daughter. It was in evidence that B. was a man of few words, and that he treated R. as his daughter.

In an equity suit by R. against the administrator of B. claiming the deposit as trust funds held by B. for R.: -

Held, that the trust was completely constituted.

Held, further, that the trust being constituted, the fact that it was voluntary was no reason for refusing relief.

To constitute a trust it is enough if the owner of property conveys it to another in trust, or if the owner of personalty unequivocally declares, either orally or in writing, that he holds it in proesenti, in trust for another.

A bill in equity to enforce a trust brought against an administrator alleged that the respondent as administrator withdrew a bank deposit, being the trust funds in question. The answer alleged the respondent's appointment as administrator in Massachusetts, and that as such he withdrew the deposit and held the same as part of his decedent's estate: -

Held, in the absence of denial by the administrator that he held the deposit as administrator in Rhode Island, that the court would presume he held it as administrator in Rhode Island, and would order him to account directly with the complainant, the trust having been proven.

BILL IN EQUITY to establish a trust.

L. & C. M. Salisbury, for complainant.

Tillinghast & Ely, for respondent.

DURFEE C. J.

The principal question in this case is whether the plaintiff is beneficially entitled to a sum of money which was formerly on deposit in the Fall River Savings Bank. The deposit was made by the late Levi Bosworth, in his own name, as trustee for the plaintiff, - the account contained in the bank-book which was furnished to Bosworth being headed as follows, to wit: " Dr. Fall River Savings Bank, in account with Levi Bosworth, trustee for Marianna Ray, Prov. Cr." The first deposit of $484 is credited as cash, under the date of April 6, 1868. The account is also credited with cash, October 31, 1868, $50, and January 8, 1872, $70, and with divers dividends. All the dividends were credited as they accrued, except one of $25.66, which was paid to Bosworth, October 12, 1870. And this was the only money withdrawn from the deposit by him previous to his death, which occurred September 15, 1872. The plaintiff, Marianna Ray, is the daughter of Ruth M. Bosworth, the widow of Levi Bosworth, by a former husband. She lived in the family of Levi Bosworth for several years previous to his death. Levi Bosworth had no children. Mrs. Bosworth testifies that he treated the plaintiff as his daughter. She also testifies that the first she knew of the bank-book, Mr. Bosworth brought it home and threw it in the plaintiff's lap. The plaintiff opened and read it, and said she was much obliged for the present. Bosworth said nothing in reply. She, Mrs. Bosworth, put the book in a box where she kept her own bank-book, a bank-book of her daughter, and bank-books belonging to her husband. She says he carried the book to Fall River three times to have the interest entered, and gave it to the plaintiff on his return. He was a man of few words, and would do things without explanation. When he made the last deposit of $70 and gave the plaintiff notice of it, she, Mrs. Bosworth, said to him: " I don't know about your making such presents!" to which he replied, " I should n't think you need trouble yourself about it; if anything happens to her, you will hold it."

The plaintiff claims to be entitled to the deposit, as money held in trust for her by Levi Bosworth. The defendant, as administrator on Bosworth's estate, resists the claim. His answer to her bill avers on information and belief that Bosworth made the deposit in his name as trustee for his own convenience, and because he had another deposit in his own name to as large an amount as the bank would receive on any one account, and therefore, to induce the bank to receive the further deposit, he put it in his name as trustee, as is a very common practice in such cases, always retaining the book under his own control. In support of this averment the defendant testified that Bosworth told him, when he was building his house, that he had money deposited in the Fall River Savings Bank, in his own name, to as large an amount as he could deposit in his own name, and in another person's name, but did not say in whose name. He also testified to conduct and admissions, on the part of the plaintiff and her mother, at variance with the plaintiff's present claim. We, however, refrain from reciting this testimony, because, in view of the explanations given by Mrs. Bosworth, we are not prepared to believe that her testimony is substantially incorrect.

The defendant contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief, because there was no effectual trust, inasmuch as Bos worth, by retaining the book, always kept and intended to keep control over the deposit for his own use, and did in fact so control it by receiving the dividend which was paid to him October 12, 1870.

We think, however, the trust was completely constituted. Levi Bosworth deposited the money in the bank to himself as trustee. The bank, receiving it, credited it to him as trustee, and, from time to time, credited to him as trustee the dividends accruing thereon. It gave him a bank-book in which these credits were entered. Bosworth moreover communicated to the plaintiff the fact that he had made the deposit to himself as her trustee by letting her have the book. It is urged that the book was returned to him by her and retained by him. But the book was given by the bank to him as trustee, and as trustee he would properly retain it. All was done which the plaintiff could ask, unless she desired to have the money paid or transferred to her, which would be not...