Taylor v. Henry

• Decision Date: 03 May 1878
• Citation: 48 Md. 550
• Parties: MARGARET TAYLOR and JAMES TAYLOR, her husband v. MARY HENRY and THOMAS BRUSCUP, Administrators of JOSEPH HENRY.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

48 Md. 550

MARGARET TAYLOR and JAMES TAYLOR, her husband v. MARY HENRY and THOMAS BRUSCUP, Administrators of JOSEPH HENRY.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

May 3, 1878

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.

The appeal in this case was taken by the defendants from a decree of the Court below, requiring them to pay, or bring into Court to be paid, to the complainants the sum of $1818.33 with interest from the 28th of September, 1866, until paid or brought into Court as aforesaid, together with the complainants' costs. The case is stated in the opinion of this Court.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., STEWART, MILLER, ALVEY and ROBINSON, J.

Andrew C. Trippe and Daniel M. Thomas, for the appellants.

The only question properly before this Court is, whether by the terms of the deposit, the balance in bank at the death of Joseph Henry, belonged to Margaret Taylor by survivorship, or to his administrators.

The terms of the deposit, " and to the survivor of them," are perfectly unambiguous, and can only mean that upon the death of either Joseph Henry or Margaret Taylor, the money then in bank would belong to the survivor and this Court has already so decided. Taylor vs. Bruscup & Henry, Adm'rs, 27 Md., 219; Murray vs. Cannon, Adm'x, 41 Md., 477.

The distinction between this case and that of Murray vs. Cannon, 41 Md., 466, upon which the Court below erroneously bases its decision, is obvious. In that case, the money was deposited in the one name of James Cannon, while here it was in the joint names of Joseph Henry and Margaret Taylor, thereby creating a joint interest in the two, with an express reservation to the survivor; and the additional words, " subject to the order of either," no more limited Mrs. Taylor's interest in the fund to one of agency than it did that of Joseph Henry.

If, therefore, the money in this case was payable to Mrs. Taylor, as survivor, it is immaterial whether she took it coupled with a trust or not. If she did, (which is not admitted,) the cestuis que trust, and not the administrators, are the proper parties to claim its enforcement. If she did not, of course the money is her own.

Nor can the complainants recover upon any supposed misunderstanding by the deceased of the terms used by him; for if the object of this proceeding was to correct a mistake, the bill should so have alleged, and in the absence of any such allegation, the question of mistake is not before the Court. Wesley vs. Thomas, 6 H. & J., 28; Ringgold vs. Ringgold, 1 H & G., 75; McElderry vs. Shipley, 2 Md., 37.

In the case above cited of Wesley vs. Thomas, the Court say: "But it must be remembered that although relief can be had in equity against a deed or contract in writing, founded in fraud or mistake, still it is essential that the fraud or mistake should be alleged in the bill, as the ground and object of parol proof. It is essential on every principle of correct pleading that that which gives jurisdiction to the Court should be distinctly and substantially alleged."

Nor is the evidence offered to show a mistake, of that clear and conclusive character which alone would warrant the interference of the Court. Watkins vs. Stockett, 6 H. & J., 445; Showman vs. Miller, 6 Md., 485; Katz vs. Moore, 13 Md., 566, 570, 573; Beall vs Greenwade's Adm'rs, 9 Md., 185; Beard vs. Hubble, 9 Gill, 431.

In the first two of the above cases, the Court quote approvingly the language of Lord THURLOW, in Irnham vs. Child, 1 Brown's Chancery Reports, 92: "That the proof of a mistake should be established as much to the satisfaction of the Court as if it were admitted, and that the difficulty of doing this is so great, that there is no instance of its prevailing against a party insisting there is no mistake."

In the case of Beard vs. Hubble, 9 Gill, 431, the Court say: "The language of Lord THURLOW, in 1 Brown's Chancery Reports, 93, may be too strong; but in all such attempts as this, it has been required of the party seeking to be relieved, upon the ground of mistake, to produce, if not quite, almost incontrovertible proof; or, to use the language of a distinguished Chancellor, 'proof, clear and overwhelming.' "

The evidence relied on by the complainants in this case, if tested by the above standard, is wholly insufficient for their purpose.

Mr. Owens, then treasurer of the bank, and the only witness who testifies to the circumstances under which the deposit was made, shows that the deposit was made by Joseph Henry himself, and in the form directed by himself. And Courts of equity will not interfere where the transaction is such as the parties designed it to be. McElderry vs. Shipley, 2 Md., 25; Showman vs. Miller, 6 Md., 479, 485.

John Warfield and Alexander H. Hobbs, for the appellees.

On the facts there was no gift, as is pretended, from Joseph Henry, in his life-time, to Margaret Taylor; there was no delivery of the money; Joseph Henry never relinquished dominion and control over it, and always retained the locus penitenti .

He retained the bank-book in his possession to the date of his death, kept the key of his trunk in which it was when he was in Baltimore, and, in fact, exercised unrestricted acts of ownership over the money as much as it was possible to do, and finally disposed thereof by last will and testament, with the knowledge of Mrs. Taylor, and without the slightest remonstrance, complaint or claim from her. Murray vs. Cannon, 41 Md., 476; Thompson vs. Dorsey, 4 Md. Ch. Dec., 149; Hitch vs. Davis, 3 Md. Ch. Dec., 266; Cox vs. Hill, assignment not under seal, 6 Md., 274; Carey vs. Dennis, 13 Md., 1; Nickerson vs. Nickerson, 28 Md., 332; Gardner vs. Merritt, 32 Md., 82; 2 Kent's Com., 438, (marginal.)

ALVEY J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

The bill in this case was filed by the administrators of Joseph Henry, who died in September, 1866, against his sister, Margaret Taylor, and her husband James Taylor, praying for an account of certain moneys drawn from the Eutaw Savings Bank of Baltimore, by Margaret Taylor, after the death of her brother Joseph.

It appears that, on the 20th of April, 1866, Joseph Henry, then being in very feeble health, and contemplating a voyage to sea or a sojourn in the South, for the benefit of his health, made a deposit in the Eutaw Savings Bank of Baltimore, of $1850. In the depositor's bankbook, furnished Henry at the time, the account was opened and the money credited to Joseph Henry and Mary Henry, his mother, and the survivor of them, subject to the order of either. Corresponding entries were made upon the books of the bank. Sometime after the deposit, Henry went again to the bank, accompanied by his sister Margaret Taylor, and had the name of his mother erased and that of his sister substituted; so that the account was made to stand in the books thus: "14096-- Joseph Henry, Margaret Taylor, and the survivor of them, subject to the order of either.

1866, April 20th. Rec'd eighteen hundred and fifty dollars--$1850." Of this amount Joseph Henry drew out $50, on the second of June, leaving a balance on deposit of $1800. After the death of Joseph Henry, that is, on the 28th of September, 1866, Margaret Taylor obtained the bank-book from the trunk of the deceased, where it had been constantly kept, and drew from the bank the entire balance, together with the interest to that date.

The bill alleges that the deceased never intended, by the deposit and entry in the bank-book, to donate or part with his right and dominion over the money; but that the form of the entry in the bank-book was the result of an arrangement, as matter of convenience to himself, whereby he clothed his sister with power to draw the money, as he might need it, during his contemplated absence from home; and to that extent Margaret Taylor was constituted his agent or trustee, but to no other intent or purpose whatever. In the answer of Margaret Taylor and her husband it is averred that, by the deposit, the deceased appropriated the money to the joint ownership of himself and his sister, Margaret Taylor, and to the survivor of them, with power to each of them, during their joint lives, to draw the money from the bank; and that by the death of Joseph Henry, the whole title to and interest in the money, thus deposited, vested in Margaret Taylor by survivorship, according to the terms and effect of the deposit; and that no further act was necessary to invest her with the title to the same.

It appears that the deceased was very anxious about the care and support of his aged mother, who survived him. He made some provision for her support during his lifetime; and he seems to have been anxious that she should be provided for after his death. He made his will on the 6th of July, 1866, whereby he gave to his mother $400, to be placed in the hands of David Murray, his brother-in-law, for her benefit; he gave to his sister Eliza Woolford, at whose house he died, the sum of $600; and he gave to his sister Margaret Taylor $300. He also gave to his uncle $50. He appointed no executor. The will was admitted to probate soon after his death; and it is not pretended that the testator had any other money or estate with which to gratify the bequests in his will than the money on deposit in the Savings Bank.

The whole question depends upon the meaning and intention of the deceased in making the deposit in the form adopted, as gathered from the entry in the bankbook, and all the circumstances surrounding the deceased at the time.

A large mass of...