Winslow v. McHenry

• Decision Date: 23 December 1904
• Citation: 93 Minn. 507,101 N.W. 799
• Parties: WINSLOW v. McHENRY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

93 Minn. 507

101 N.W. 799

WINSLOW

v.McHENRY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 23, 1904.

Appeal from District Court, Stearns County; D. B. Searle, Judge.

Action by B. H. Winslow, administrator of Henry B. McHenry, against Mary E. McHenry. Judgment directed for plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The plaintiff's intestate made a deposit in a bank, taking a certificate therefor to the effect that he had deposited $2,100, payable to the order of himself or wife upon the return of the certificate properly indorsed. His declared purpose in so depositing the money was to enable his wife, the defendant, to collect it in case of his death. He retained possession of the certificate during his life, and after his death the defendant obtained possession of indorsed, and collected it. This action was brought by the administrator to recover the money so collected. Held, that the findings and decision of the trial court to the effect that there was no gift, either causa mortis or inter vivos, of the money to the defendant, are sustained by the evidence. Theo. Bruener, for appellant.

F. N. White, Hubert Hansen, and Reynolds & Roeser, for respondent.

START, C. J.

Action by the administrator of the estate of Henry B. McHenry, deceased, to recover from the defendant $2,100 and interest; being the amount collected by her on a certificate of deposit for that amount issued by the Old Bank of St. James, Minn. This certificate was dated October 30, 1901, and, so far as here material, was in these words: ‘Henry B. McHenry has deposited in this bank two thousand one hundred dollars payable to the order of himself or wife upon the return of this certificate properly endorsed.’ The complaint alleged, in effect, that Henry B. McHenry died intestate March 11, 1902, and at the time of his death was the owner and in possession of this certificate; that thereafter the defendant obtained possession thereof, and collected it from the bank, receiving thereon $2,117 as principal and interest; and further that the plaintiff was duly appointed administrator of the estate of the deceased, and demanded from the defendant the money so collected by her, which she refused to pay to the plaintiff. The answer denied that the plaintiff's intestate was the owner of the certificate at the time of his death, and alleged that the defendant was the wife of the intestate, and the person referred to in the certificate as his wife, and that she was the owner of the certificate, and entitled to the money represented by it. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and findings of fact made to the effect that the defendant was never the owner of the certificate of deposit, but that the plaintiff's intestate was at the time of his death the owner and in possession of the certificate; and, as a conclusion of law, judgment was directed for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed from an order denying her motion for a new trial.

Practically the only question presented by the record is whether the findings of the trial court are sustained by the evidence. If the undisputed evidence establishes a gift causa mortis of the certificate to the defendant, the findings are not sustained by the...