Schwanke v. Garlt
| Decision Date | 05 November 1935 |
| Citation | 219 Wis. 367,263 N.W. 176 |
| Parties | SCHWANKE v. GARLT ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Rock County; George Grimm, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
In this action, commenced on October 25, 1934, the plaintiff Frank Schwanke, as executor of the will of Julia Schwanke, deceased, seeks to recover from the defendants, Leona Garlt and the First National Bank of Janesville, the amount of a savings account which, at the time of the death of Julia Schwanke, was in her name and that of the defendant Leona Garlt. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, entered on March 22, 1935, the plaintiff appealed. The facts will be stated in the opinion.
Edward F. Hemming and William G. Wheeler, both of Janesville, for appellant.
H. L. Maxfield and Jeffris, Mouat, Oestreich, Wood & Cunningham, all of Janesville, for respondents.
The material controlling facts are not in dispute. On and prior to June 29, 1934, Julia Schwanke was the owner of a savings account in the First National Bank of Janesville, amounting to $2,500. That account was at that time in her name and that of Ferdinand Schwanke, her deceased husband. On that day Julia Schwanke went to the bank and told its president of her desire to have her said savings account changed to her name and that of her granddaughter Leona Garlt, so that, in case of her death, Leona Garlt would be entitled to it as survivor. Her expressed desires were accomplished by her surrendering to the bank her old passbook and by the bank's issuing to her a new passbookwhich evidenced the deposit of $2,500 in a savings account in the names of “Julia Schwanke or Leona Garlt, Jt. a/c.” Pursuant to previous appointment, Leona Garlt went to the bank, arriving there a short time after Julia Schwanke arrived. The president of the bank told her, in the presence of Julia Schwanke, what had been done. It was understood and intended by Julia Schwanke, Leona Garlt, and the bank that what was then and there being done should operate to make Julia Schwanke and Leona Garlt joint owners of the account, and that, upon the death of either of them, the survivor would be the sole and absolute owner of the account or of any balance remaining therein. At the same time and as a part of the same transaction and at the request of the president, Julia Schwanke and Leona Garlt signed and delivered to the bank a printed card whch contained, among other things, the following declaration:
“Joint Account--Payable to Either or Survivor.
We agree and declare that all funds now, or hereafter, deposited in this account are, and shall be, our joint property and owned by us as joint tenants and not as tenants in common; and upon the death of either of us any balance in said account shall become the absolute property of the survivor. The entire account or any part thereof may be withdrawn by, or upon the order of, either of us or the survivor.
It is especially agreed that withdrawals of funds by the survivor shall be binding upon us and upon our heirs, next of kin, legatees, assigns and personal representatives.
Payment to or on check of the survivor shall be subject to the laws relating to inheritance and succession taxes and all rules and regulations made pursuant thereto.”
The new passbook provided that the account was “opened and carried subject to the following rules and regulations which are, by the acceptance of this book, agreed to by the depositor.” Rule 7, contained therein, was as follows:
The transaction was concluded by the president's handing the new passbook to Julia Schwanke in the presence of Leona Garlt. The passbook was carried away by the former and remained in her possession until shortly before her death, when she turned it over to a Mrs. Zimmerman by handing to the latter a package containing it and other things, but with no specific instructions concerning it. The court found in favor of the defendants and dismissed the complaint.
It must be conceded that, unless our recent rulings in Re Staver's Estate, 260 N. W. 655 and in Re Skilling's Estate, 260 N. W. 660, are repudiated, they unquestionably rule this controversy. The first case mentioned was decided only after it had been considered in several conferences and had been given unusually careful consideration. After having presently given due consideration to all of plaintiff's contentions to the effect that the holdings in those cases are unsound, we adhere to the law as there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorensen by Kerscher v. Jarvis
... ... Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474, [487, 55 S.Ct. 296, 301, 79 L.Ed. 603 (1935) ]," quoted with approval in Schwanke v. Garlt, 219 Wis. 367, 371, 263 N.W. 176 (1935) ... Thus, as a part of our common law heritage, this court is free to amend the ... ...
-
Wangen v. Ford Motor Co.
... ... Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474, 487, 55 S.Ct. 296, 301, 79 L.Ed. 603 (1935), quoted with approval Schwanke v. Garlt, 219 Wis. 367, 371, 263 N.W. 176 (1935). 9 ... We must acknowledge, and Ford does not argue otherwise, that there are ... ...
-
State v. Stevens, 92-1557-CR
... ... Schwanke v. Garlt, 219 Wis. 367, 371, 263 N.W. 176 (1935); Bielski v. Schulze, 16 Wis.2d 1, 11, 114 N.W.2d 105 (1962); Prah v. Maretti, 108 Wis.2d 223, ... ...
-
Cook v. Cook
... ... 16 State v. Stevens, 181 Wis.2d 410, 442, 511 N.W.2d 591 (1993) (Abrahamson, J., concurring) (citing Schwanke v. Garlt, 219 Wis. 367, 371, 263 N.W. 176 (1935); Bielski v. Schulze, 16 Wis.2d 1, 11, 114 N.W.2d 105 (1962); Prah v. Maretti, 108 Wis.2d 223, ... ...
-
"Just words": common law and the enforcement of state constitutional social and economic rights.
...but flexible, and upon its own principles adapts itself to varying conditions" (internal citation removed) (citing Schwanke v. Garlt, 263 N.W. 176 (Wis. (275.) See, e.g., Jean Braucher, Response to Eric Posner, 7 FORDHAM J. CORP. & FIN. L. 463, n.21 (2002) (stating that "contract rules ......