Minor v. Rogers. MINOR V. ROGERS. (40 Conn. 512.) Gift — when complete — deposit in savings bank — declaration of intention. A wealthy and childless widow deposited in a savings bank $250 in her own name as truste for W., the child of a neighbor and friend. Soon after she told his parents that she had deposited such sum for their son, and afterward spoke of it as belonging to him. She afterward drew out the money at different times, and applied it to her own use; and died leaving a will in which no mention was made of the deposit or of W. Held, that the deposit was a complete gift; that the depositor could not revoke it, and that her executor was liable to W. for the amount. A SSUMPSIT by William A. Minor against Ely F. Rogers, executor, for money had and received. The court found the following facts: For sixteen years prior to her death, which occurred in the year 1868, Mary Daniels lived as a near neighbor to the plaintiff's father, in the town of Branford. She was a widow, having a large estate and no children, and left property to the amount of about $35,000. She was intimate with and friendly to the family of the plaintiff's father, and was in the habit of employing the plaintiff to run of errands, and often took him with her when she rode out. He was at her house almost daily, doing errands for her, and she made him several presents of clothing, jewelry, etc. On the 30th day of March, 1861, the plaintiff came with her to New Haven. She inquired of him particularly about his middle name, and leaving him in a store with directions to wait for her, she visited the New Haven Savings Bank (where, at that time and for a year or two after, she had no deposit except the one now to be mentioned), and deposited in the bank $250, receiving the usual bank deposit book, made out to " Mary Daniels as trustee of William A. Minor." The semi-annual interest was afterward added upon the book up to January, 1863, and again up to January, 1864. On the 15th of June, 1863, she drew out $150 of the money, and on the 18th of May, 1864, she drew $130.15, the balance of principal and interest then due, and signed a receipt in the book in her Minor v. Rogers. own name, without the addition of trustee, and then delivered up the book to the bank. The book up to that time had always been retained in her own possession. In her will she disposed of all her estate, making no mention of the plaintiff or of the deposit. A few days after making the deposit she informed the plaintiff' father that she had deposited $250 in the savings bank for Willie, meaning the plaintiff; and on two other occasions during the same summer she alluded to the fact in conversation with the plaintiff's parents, and that he would need it for his education. He was at that time about thirteen years old and residing with his parents. The plaintiff knew nothing of the deposit until after the death of Mrs. Daniels, and no further allusion was made to it between her and the plaintiff's parents during her life. It did not appear for what purpose she drew the money out, nor what she did with it. The defendant is her executor, and the present suit is brought to recover the money with interest. The plaintiff claimed that these facts constituted a gift to him, taking effect on the 30th day of March, 1861, never revoked in fact and irrevocable in law, and that he was entitled to recover what the sum would amount to, compounded semi-annually by the law of the savings bank, or at least the amount drawn out by Mrs. Daniels with interest, at six per cent thereon to the date of judgment. The defendant claimed that upon the facts there was no effective gift; that in law Mrs. Daniels had, notwithstanding the deposit, the right to revoke her intended bounty, and that by withdrawing the deposit in her own name she must be deemed to have revoked it, so that it never became effective. The court found that at the time she made the deposit she intended to give the sum deposited to the plaintiff. There was no evidence, other than the above facts, to show whether she intended it as a gift to take full effect at that time or at some future time. If such deposit was sufficient in law to make the gift effective and complete, then the court found that the gift then and there became effective, and vested the ownership in the plaintiff; otherwise not. If the gift was revocable, and the withdrawal of the deposit in her own name, without any further declaration with reference thereto, was sufficient to constitute a revocation, then the court found that it was so revoked by Mrs. Daniels during her life, and before it had taken effect. Minor v. Rogers. Upon these facts the case was reserved for the advice of this court. Wright and Hicks, for plaintiff. Morris, for defendant. PARK, J. It is found in this case that Mary Daniels deposited the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars in the New Haven Savings Bank for the sole benefit of the plaintiff, and that she did this intending thereby to vest in the plaintiff all the beneficial interest in the deposit. Within a few days thereafter she informed the plaintiff's father of what she had done for the plaintiff, and remarked that he would need the donation to acquire an education. But she made the deposit in her own name as trustee of the plaintiff, and kept the bank book in her possession; and this gives rise to all the doubt there is in the case, namely, whether the gift was consummated or not. It is evident that she did all that she thought necessary to be done to perfect the gift, and supposed that she had accomplished the object; and the only question is, whether she was successful. If she had made the deposit in the name of the plaintiff alone, or had made some other person than herself trustee for the plaintiff, no question could have arisen regarding the completeness of the gift. But the beneficial interest is as much given as it would have been if either of these modes had seen adopted. The deposit is made in the bank for the plaintiff, and the bank is informed of the fact. Here is a delivery of the beneficial interest. No more would have been done if the deposit had been made in the name of a third party for the plaintiff. The trustee in that case would have had nothing more than the bare, naked, legal title, without any beneficial interest whatsoever. That interest would have vested directly in the plaintiff. Can it be said that Mrs. Daniels retained in her possession any thing more -any thing but the naked legal title, when all the beneficial interest had been as completely given and delivered to the plaintiff, as it could have been if a third party had been made trustee? Suppose she had given the plaintiff a writing to this effect: "I, Mary Daniels, have this day deposited in the New Haven Savings Bank two hundred and fifty dollars in my name as trustee of William A. Mitor," would the case be stronger than it is now? She substan Minor v. Rogers. tially so declared to the bank when she made the deposit, expecting they would make a record of it for the benefit of the plaintiff, which they did make. She substantially so declared to the father and natural guardian of the plaintiff, a short time after, expecting, no doubt, that he would inform the plaintiff of what she had done for him It is true that a mere naked promise to give personal property, or a declaration by a party that he gives such property, without performing some act delivering or conveying the property to the donee, would not be sufficient. But here the donor took the sum of money, and deposited it in the bank, where she had no funds of her own, for the purpose of transferring all the beneficial interest in the same to the plaintiff; and although she used her own name as trustee of the plaintiff, still the act had the same effect as depositing it in the plaintiff's name, in every respect except the legal title. Surely here are acts done for the purpose of transferring the beneficial interest in the chose in action to the plaintiff. If the deposit had been made in the name of the donor alone, then it would have been necessary, in order to perfect the gift, for her to have given the plaintiff a writing conveying the gift, or an assignment of the bank book on which the deposit was entered, as in the case of Camp's Appeal from Probate, 36 Conn. 88; S. C., 4 Am. Rep. 39. But here the conveyance was made of the chose in action at the time the deposit was made, and it so appears on the books of the bank, and on the donor's bank book, which entries she caused to be made at the time of the transaction. But the defendant relies very much upon the fact that Mrs. Daniels retained possession of the bank book. He considers this act of hers as wholly inconsistent with a perfected gift. But she could not act as trustee of the chose in action without retaining possession of the book, for it is well known that savings banks require the presentation of such books whenever any action on their part is asked for with regard to the deposits in the banks. She retained possession, therefore, because the deposit was made in her name as trustee, and not because she had not given the beneficial interest of the deposit to the plaintiff. The view we have taken of this case is supported by the case of Gardner v. Merritt, 32 Md. 78; S. C., 3 Am. Rep. 115. In that case a grandmother, from time to time during a penod of five Minor v. Rogers. years, deposited various sums of money in a savings bank in Baltimore to the credit of her five grandchildren. The accounts in the bank were entered in the name of each child as a minor, and the deposits were made subject to the order of the grandmother or that of her daughter. The grandmother died, and shortly after her death the daughter, who was the executrix of her mother's will, ǝbtained from the bank all the money that had been deposited to the credit of the grandchildren, and treated it as a part of the grandmother's estate. It was held that the moneys deposited by the grandmother became perfected gifts in the grandchildren, and that the donees were entitled to the several amounts which stood to their credit in the bank when they were withdrawn by the defendant. The case of Millspaugh v. Putnam, 16 Abbott's Pr. 380, is directly in point. There C. F. deposited money in a bank in her own name, and to her own credit, but in trust for C. F. M. It was held that this fact raised a presumption that the money deposited was the money of C. F. M. and might be so regarded. But even as a gift from C. F. to C. F. M. the court held the transaction to be sufficiently definite and complete to make the gift absolute and perfect in C. F. M. See also the following cases: Grangiac v. Arden, 10 Johns. 293; Grover v. Grover, 24 Pick. 261; Howard v. Windham County Savings Bank, 40 Vt. 597; Penfield v. Thayer, 2 E. D. Smith, 305; Parish v. Stone, 14 Pick. 198; Champney v. Blanchard, 39 N. Y. 111. We think, therefore, that the gift of Mrs. Daniels to the plaintiff was complete when the money was deposited in the bank, and that consequently she could not thereafter annul the transaction, as she attempted to do. The defendant further claims that her trust was void for uncertainty, because no time is specified when the plaintiff should enjoy the legal as well as the equitable right to the property. The donor stated that the plaintiff would need the donation for his education, thereby implying that it should be in his hands for that purpose when that time should arrive. At all events it cannot be considered that she intended the trusteeship to continue longer than during the minority of the plaintiff. We see no difficulty in this objec jon. Again, it is claimed that the plaintiff cannot maintain this action at law, on the ground that the legal title to the chose in action nerer vested in him. It will be observed that some three years V. XVI.-10 |