Reese v. Philadelphia Trust, Safe Deposit & Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 May 1907 |
| Docket Number | 382 |
| Citation | 67 A. 124,218 Pa. 150 |
| Parties | Reese, Appellant, v. Philadelphia Trust, Safe Deposit & Insurance Company |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued March 27, 1907
Appeal, No. 382, Jan. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from decree of C.P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1905, No. 1,270, dismissing bill in equity in case of William K. Reese v. The Philadelphia Trust, Safe Deposit & Insurance Co., Executors of the Will of Anna K. Pomeroy, deceased, et al. Reversed.
Bill in equity to secure the transfer of securities.
MARTIN P.J., found the facts to be as follows:
William K. Reese, the complainant, is the nephew of Anna K. Pomeroy a widow without children of her own, whodied August 25, 1905, between the age of sixty-five and seventy years. The relations of William K. Reese to his aunt were very affectionate. He was treated by her as a son from childhood. He and his sisters were her nearest relatives, and he was a member of her household.
She kept securities belonging to her estate in a safe deposit box in the vault of the Philadelphia Trust Company. The plaintiff was designated by her upon the books of the company as a deputy to visit the box in her absence.
On August 1, 1904, Mrs. Pomeroy and her nephew went to the vault, her deposit box was taken into a room, and an officer of the company sent for by her. When he entered, Mrs. Pomeroy and Mr. Reese were seated at the table upon which the box stood open. Some of the securities were lying on the table, others remained in the box. She said she was giving Mr. Reese the box and its contents and that she wished the official to act as a witness. He informed her that powers of attorney should be executed to transfer registered securities. At her request a clerk was sent into the room with powers printed in blank to effect transfers. A power to transfer five seven per cent. first mortgage bonds of the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company, for $1,000 each, registered in the name of Anna K. Pomeroy, was executed by her and witnessed by the clerk. Powers were signed by her on the back of two certificates for three and twenty shares each of the capital stock of the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company, standing in her name upon the books of the company and duly witnessed; and powers upon the back of three certificates for three, four and thirty-one shares respectively of the capital stock of the Lehigh Coal & Navigation Company, were executed by her and witnessed in the same way.
No transfer of these securities was actually made upon the books of the companies.
On the same day the box in which they had been kept by her was surrendered, a new box rented from the trust company by William K. Reese, and he delegated Mrs. Pomeroy as his deputy to have access to this box. She availed herself of the privilege upon several occasions, detached coupons from bonds, collected income and deposited the money in her individual account. During her absence from the city at a time when Mr. Reese was residing in California she executed a letter of attorney authorizing the trust company to act for her. The money collected under this authority by the company was paid to her or deposited in her individual account. The securities were at this time still registered in her name and the trust company, acting by virtue of her authorization to it, collected the income accruing upon them. After her death William K. Reese presented the certificates with the powers of attorney at the offices of the companies and demanded transfers into his own name, which were refused. A bill in equity was filed by him setting forth the facts, alleging a gift of the securities by Mrs. Pomeroy to him and praying for a mandatory injunction to compel the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company, the Lehigh Coal & Navigation Company and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company to transfer to him the shares of stock issued by them respectively, standing upon their books in the name of Anna K. Pomeroy; for a decree compelling the Philadelphia Trust, Safe Deposit and Insurance Company as executors of the will of Anna K. Pomeroy, deceased, to execute as executors powers of attorney to effect a transfer of the securities to complainant and for a decree that the testimony taken in support of the allegations of the bill be made a matter of record and remain in perpetuam rei memoriam.
Kate R. Tevis and Mary E. Baker, the sisters of William K. Reese, were allowed to intervene as parties in the suit. Answers were filed in which the former denied that Mrs. Pomeroy intended to make a gift of the securities to plaintiff, and the latter demanded proof of his title. The Philadelphia Trust, Safe Deposit and Insurance Company set out that they were executors of Mrs. Pomeroy's will, stated in detail the circumstances attending the gift of the securities and submitted themselves to the court. The other defendants submitted themselves to the court in the premises.
The auditing judge recommended a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Exceptions to the adjudication were sustained in an opinion by RALSTON, J., and a decree was entered dismissing the bill.
Error assigned was the decree of the court.
The decree of the court below is reversed; the plaintiff's bill is reinstated, and it is now ordered that a decree be entered directing an injunction mandatory in form to the Philadelphia Trust, Safe Deposit & Insurance Company, executor of the will of Anna K. Pomeroy, deceased, requiring it to sign as such executor such powers of attorney as may be required to transfer to William K. Reese the said recited securities. The cost of this proceeding to be paid by the executor of the will of Anna K. Pomeroy, deceased.
William W. Porter and John G. Johnson, for appellant. -- The delivery of a bond, certificate of stock or note to the donee, with the intention of transferring to him the right of property, is sufficient to constitute a gift: Hani v. Insurance Co., 197 Pa. 276; Commonwealth v. Crompton, 137 Pa. 138; Madeira's Appeal, 17 W.N.C. 202; Pryor v. Morgan, 170 Pa. 568; Wise's Estate, 182 Pa. 168; Malone's Estate, 8 W.N.C. 179; Mothes's Estate, 29 Pa.Super. 462; Wendt's Estate, 14 Pa.Super. 640; Bond v. Bunting, 78 Pa. 210; Riegel v. Wooley, 81* Pa. 227; Hess v. Brown, 111 Pa. 124; Funston v. Twining, 202 Pa. 88; Parker's Estate, 34 W.N.C. 376.
Henry Budd, with him Peter Boyd, Henry B. Hodge, and R. L. Ashhurst, for the Philadelphia Trust Co., appellee. -- To make valid gifts there must have been, not only an intention to make them, but to do so at the time and not in the future, attended by an actual or constructive delivery to the donees, by which the donor released all dominion over the funds and invested the donees with the full title to and control over the same: Basket v. Hassell, 107 U.S. 602 (2 S.Ct. Repr. 415); Com. v. Crompton, 137 Pa. 138; Clapper v. Frederick, 199 Pa. 609.
But gifts inter vivos have no reference to the future. They take immediate and absolute effect. A gift to take effect in futuro is void: Withers v. Weaver, 10 Pa. 391; Flanagan v. Nash, 185 Pa. 41; Williams's App., 106 Pa. 116; Scott v. Lauman, 104 Pa. 593; Stockham's Estate, 19 Pa. C.C. Rep. 369; Tygard v. McComb, 54 Mo.App. 85; Hafer v. McKelvey, 23 Pa.Super. 202.
Henry Budd, with him Peter Boyd, for Kate R. Tevis and Mary E. Baker, appellees.
Before MITCHELL, C.J., FELL, MESTREZAT, POTTER and STEWART JJ.
If the legal effect and consequence of the transaction between Mrs. Pomeroy and her nephew, William K. Reese, the appellant, are at all obscure, it is not because the transaction itself in any of its features is uncertain or equivocal. It is claimed that what subsequently occurred between the parties shows a purpose in the mind of Mrs. Pomeroy the very opposite of that indicated by the transaction, and a corresponding understanding by the nephew. The learned judge before whom the case was heard derived from the transaction a valid and effective gift of the securities in question. He was overruled in this by the court in banc, and this appeal results. The facts are undisputed, and may be briefly stated.
Mrs Anna K. Pomeroy was a widow of advanced age and childless. Her nearest kindred were the appellant, a nephew and his three sisters, two of whom are among the appellees. For the appellant, who had resided with her from childhood, she entertained special affection, treating him as a son. On August 1, 1904, the aunt and nephew together went to the Philadelphia Trust, Safe Deposit & Insurance Company, where the former had a rented safe or box in which she kept certain securities. While they were together in the room of the directors of the company she took out the box, and having placed it on a table called into the room Mr. Scholey, an officer of the company. She told Mr. Scholey that she was giving to her nephew the box and contents, and that she wished him to witness the gift. She was then seated at the table where the box was; some of the securities were still in the box, while others were out upon the table. Mr. Scholey examined the securities sufficiently to see their general character, and told Mrs. Pomeroy that inasmuch as some were...
To continue reading
Request your trial