Stephens v. Stephens
| Decision Date | 08 June 1942 |
| Docket Number | 35016. |
| Citation | 193 Miss. 98,8 So.2d 462 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | STEPHENS et al. v. STEPHENS. |
Frank E. Everett, of Indianola, for appellants.
Neill Clark & Townsend, of Indianola, for appellee.
W. S Stephens had been a customer of the Peoples Bank of Indianola for some time prior to February 11, 1941, but during several months next before that date his account with the bank had been inactive, there being therein to his credit a balance of only four cents. On the date mentioned Stephens and his wife Ethel Lee, borrowed from the bank, on their joint note, the sum of $150 and stated that they desired to make further deposits, but in doing so they wanted it so arranged that if one should die, the remainder of the deposits would go to the survivor. Thereupon the bank suggested and presented to them a printed joint account agreement, which both of them signed and delivered to the bank, and the bank accepted it, to be made a part of and as dominating the W. S. Stephens' deposit account-which the bank continued to carry, however upon its ledger sheets under the name "W. S. Stephens".
The document so signed, delivered and accepted is in the following words:
"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 with right of survivorship, 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 The entire account or any part thereof may be withdrawn by, or upon the order of, either of us or the survivor.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.
On October 22, 1941, W. S. Stephens died testate, and his executors demanded of the bank the balance remaining in said account, and Ethel Lee having made a like demand, the bank filed its bill of interpleader, and there followed a decree in favor of the wife.
Numerous cases have dealt with this subject. The rule deducible from what seems to us to be the weight of the authorities is that when there is a clear intention to create a right which embraces the essential elements of joint ownership and survivorship in respect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooper v. Crabb
...Savings and Loan Association, 498 So.2d 324, 327 (Miss.1986); In re Collier, 381 So.2d 1338, 1340 (Miss.1980); Stephens v. Stephens, 193 Miss. 98, 101-02, 8 So.2d 462, 463 (1942). The key is to realize that Bethay's donees are the joint tenants, herself and Cooper, as their interests may ap......
-
Estate of Stamper
...28 So.2d 841 (1947); Leverette v. Ainsworth, 199 Miss. 652, 23 So.2d 798 (1946); In re Estate of Lewis, supra; and Stephens v. Stephens, 193 Miss. 98, 8 So.2d 462 (1942). Within that vacillation, however, one thing is clear: we find no ground for the thought the statute as then written excl......
-
Manning v. U.S. Nat. Bank
...supra, (parol evidence rule discussed); Moskowitz v. Marrow, 251 N.Y. 380, 167 N.E. 506, 66 A.L.R. 870, (bank deposit); Stephens v. Stephens, 193 Miss. 98, 8 So. (2d) 462, (bank deposit); Bennett v. 70 Ohio App. 187, 45 N.E. (2d) 614, (bank deposit). 16. It is alleged in the answer of Edwar......
-
Will and Estate of Strange, In re, 07-58715
...bank deposit, or account, the intention so proved will be given effect and the survivor held entitled to the fund. Stephens v. Stephens, 193 Miss. 98, 8 So.(2d) 462, In Re: Lewis' Estate, 194 Miss. 480, 13 So.(2d) 199 Miss. at 657, 23 So.2d at 799. In In Re: Lewis' Estate, 194 Miss. 480, 13......