Taylor v. Coriell

• Decision Date: 05 April 1904
• Citation: 66 N.J.E. 262,57 A. 810
• Parties: TAYLOR v. CORIELL et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

57 A. 810

66 N.J.E. 262

TAYLOR

v. CORIELL et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

April 5, 1904.

Bill by Mary E. Taylor against Ellen Coriell, administratrix of Richard B. Coriell, deceased, and others. Bill dismissed.

George S. Hobart, for complainant.

William A Lewis, for defendants.

BERGEN, V. C. August 8, 1888, Richard B. Coriell deposited in the Provident Institution for Savings, in Jersey City, the sum of $207.56, and caused the account to be opened on the books of that institution in the name of "Richard B. and Mary E. Coriell," in which form it remained until his death in 1902. The account was increased from time to time by deposits, and decreased by drafts made against it all such drafts being made by Richard. The balance standing to this account, with interest added to the 1st day of January, 1904, is $2,504.28, the ownership of which is the disputed question in this cause. The complainant, Mary E. Taylor (formerly Coriell), whose name appears in the joint account, claims it as a gift inter vivos from her father, Richard; and the defendant, as the widow of Richard, insists that it was his property at the time of his death, and should be paid to her as the administratrix of his estate. When the bill of complaint was filed, the widow was made a defendant individually, but, being subsequently appointed administratrix, the pleadings were amended so that she now appears on the record as defendant in a representative capacity. The relief desired is to have the defendant permanently enjoined from drawing the fund, she holding the passbook, and the prayer in the answer is that the bill be dismissed. The Provident Institution was also made defendant, and has formally answered, admitting its liability to pay to either the daughter or widow when their rights have been established. At the time the original deposit was made the Savings institution issued and delivered to Richard, the father, a passbook usual in such cases, in which the names of the depositors were entered in the same form as on the books of the bank. This book contained a printed copy of some of the regulations of the bank, subject to which deposits were received, one of which was: "But no person shall receive any part of this principal or interest without producing the original book that such payments may be entered therein."

The following circumstances preceding the opening of this account are, in my judgment, sufficiently proven to justify their acceptance: That in 1876 a son of Mr. Coriell died, having a small sum of money standing to his credit in the Provident Institution, to secure the payment of which the father was required to administer; that at this time there was an account in the same institution standing to the credit alone of the former wife of Mr. Coriell, in which she was described as the "wife of Richard B. Coriell"; that some time after 1876, and previous to the death of the wife, this account was changed on the books of the bank by erasing the words "wife of," thus leaving the account in the joint names of the wife and husband; that after the death of the wife, and when the complainant arrived at the age of 21 years, and on August 8, 1888, the husband drew from this account the balance standing to his credit, $107.56, and on the same day opened the account in the name of himself and daughter, adding $100 to the sum drawn, thus making the first deposit in this account stand at $207.56; that two of the brothers of the complainant had accounts in this bank, and in both instances the name of the complainant appeared as a joint depositor, so that after the death of the son in 1876 every savings account belonging to any member of this family stood in the names of two persons, and after the death of the mother one of the names in each case was that of this complainant, who does not, so far as appears, make any claim to the ownership of any of these funds other than the one now in question; that in one case her name has been replaced by that of the wife of one of the brothers, who had married after the account was opened; that Richard, the father, explained to the defendant that his reason for keeping the account in the joint names of himself and the daughter was because he had had trouble with his son Eddie's account when he died, and he wished to avoid having any such trouble again, and that she need not worry, as she should have a third of the money. These circumstances satisfy my mind that it was the settled policy of Richard B. Coriell to have every savings account in which any member of his family was interested stand in the name of two persons, and that the only reasonable presumption to be deduced from these facts is that his purpose was to provide for the convenient management of the fund in the event of the death or incapacity of the owner and depositor of the money; and further evidence of his intention as to this particular fund is the fact that he retained until his death the possession and control of the passbook, which carried with it the absolute control and management of the fund; and that at different times he drew large sums of money from it, at one time nearly depleting the account, withdrawing at a single draft $1,450, leaving a balance of only $34.41, showing "that the case in its inception was one of trust for himself, and not of gift" to his daughter. Schick v. Grote, 42 N. J. Eq. 352, 7 Atl. 852. If it clearly appears that a deposit made to a joint account is merely for the convenience of the parent in drawing money, and not with the intention to make a gift to the child in case of it surviving its parent, a subsequent change of intention must be proven by clear and satisfactory evidence. Permitting the account to remain in joint names is not sufficient. Skillman v. Wiegand, 54 N. J. Eq. 198, 33 Atl. 929. As was said by Vice Chancellor Pitney in Skillman v. Wiegand: "In view of the well-known practice of savings banks to pay money on the presentation by the depositor in person of his or her passbook, the motive of convenience in drawing money without personal attendance becomes at once prominent, and a not uncommon purpose in the placing of moneys in bank to joint account * * * And in case of savings banks the proprietor of the fund, by re taining the passbook in his possession, retains complete control of it." Mr. Coriell. the depositor, was employed during the usual banking hours in New York City, and it it not unreasonable to infer that he wished to have some one qualified to draw money if he should not be able at all times to be present. It is clear that he manifested no intention to part with his right to the control, use, or disposition of the fund. Smith v. Speer, 34 N. J. Eq. 336.

The complainant, however, insists that she has overcome the fair deduction to be made from the foregoing facts that the account was established for the convenience of the father, and not as a gift, by testimony showing that the fund was intended by her father at its Inception to be her property, and that the donation became operative at that time. The only witness of what then occurred was the complainant. The testimony of the other witnesses, to which I shall hereafter refer, relates to periods long subsequent to this event, and, in my judgment, affords no corroboration of a donative purpose formed and executed in August, 1888. The complainant made some general statements, but when asked to recite what her father said at that time her reply was that he used the following words: "I am going to take you down and have your name put on the book, as you are my oldest daughter at home, and are keeping house for me, and I want you to have whatever there is." Being further questioned, she said at no other time did he give any reason for opening the account in the form in which it stands. With the exception of the last clause above quoted, all that he said was consistent with his apparent policy of having her name "on the book" for the convenience of the fund; and as to the latter clause, if construed as a donation, it would be limited to that particular deposit, which he afterward withdrew from the bank and applied to his own purposes. Whether the father made the admission in the language used by the witness with the purpose of actually transferring the ownership of the fund to her as a gift, viewed in the light of his subsequent acts, is debatable, and is not as convincing as it should be to entitle the complainant to establish the ownership she sets up. Evidence of declarations in the nature of admissions is always received with great caution, and when ascribed to a deceased person, and testified to only by the party to be benefited, it should be closely scrutinized, and before giving it controlling force the subsequent acts of both parties, together with their relation to each other, should be fully considered. When this gift was made, as claimed by the complainant, her father was a widower, with five children, three of them daughters, and all but one living at his home in Jersey City, and the effect of this gift was to deprive his other children (one of them a daughter only about 12 years of age) of any portion of, or interest in, his personal...