Engel Estate
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bell
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell,Engеl died intestate on November 28, 1957, survived by five nieces as his heirs at law and next of kin. On May 2, 1957, decedent deposited $15,288.95 of his own money in a savings account in the Paoli Bank, which shortly thereafter merged with Berwyn National Bank and became known as Upper Main Linе Bank. On that occasion, Engel and his nieces, Lena Hutton and Anna Elizabeth Doll, opened the savings account in their three names and signed an ineptly worded signature card, the pertinent provisions of which are as follows:
“Individual — Commercial Account of
Engel & Hutton & Doll—
All three signatures required—
Paoli Bank, Paoli, Pennsylvania
(s) Karl Frederick Engel
Authorized Signature (s) Lena Hutton
Authorized Signature (s) Anna Elizabeth Doll Address
R.D. 4, Box 467 Norristown, Pa.
Date Opened Date Closed
5-2-57 ”
This signature card had delеted, by a large X mark through the whole of it, the provision for a “Jоint Account — Payable To Either Or Survivor.” ; and nothing was substituted.
Although it does nоt appear on the signature card, appellant states that “the regulations of the bank . . . provided, ‘No payment made without this pass book.’ ” After Engel’s death, the passbook could not be found.
No additional deposits nor any withdrawals were mаde between the time the account was .opened аnd Engel’s death. After Engel’s death the entire savings
Engel’s administratrix charged herself in the inventory as well as in the aсcount with one-third of the |15,493.27 * which were on deposit in the aforеsaid savings account. At the audit of the administratrix’s account, twо of decedent’s other three nieces, none of whom were included in the savings account, filed exceptions cоntending that the administratrix should have included in the inventory and acсount all the funds which had been on deposit in the savings account аnd not merely one-third of such funds. No testimony was presented by any рarty. The Orphans’ Court, after argument, decided that the savings account was held by the three signatories in common and dismissed the еxceptions. From the final decree of the Orphans’ Court, thе two disappointed nieces took this appeal.
This savings bank account, which was opened by Engel with his own money at the time he and his two nieces signed the aforesaid signature cаrd, and could be withdrawn
only by the three signatories
created presumptively the relationship of tenants in common:
Bohn v. Fund of $1230.10,
178 Pa. Superior Ct. 420, 426, 116 A. 2d 266. Cf. also
Taylor v. Fried,
161 Pa. 53, 28 A. 993;
Butler Savings Bank v. Osborne,
159 Pa. 10, 28 A. 163;
Neill v. Shamburg,
158 Pa. 263, 27 A. 992;
Dunham v. Loverock,
158 Pa. 197, 27 A. 990;
Kieffer’s Estate,
136 Pa. 535, 20 A. 523;
Schaeffer v. Fowler,
111 Pa. 451, 2 A. 558; Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, Yol. 14, ch. 3, §41, Tenancy in Common. This presumption can be rebutted by сompetent evidence, or a plain intent to the cоntrary appearing in the written agreement. It is well established thаt ten
The fact, if it be a fаct, that the passbook was retained by Engel, would not suffice tо change or invalidate this tenancy since it was impossible fоr each of the tenants to possess the passbook. Cf. Cox Estate, 405 Pa. 444, 176 A. 2d 894; Fell Estate, 369 Pa. 597, 87 A. 2d 310.
Undеr all the facts and circumstances, a tenancy in common was created in this savings account and each of the tenants had an equal one-third interest.
Decree affirmed, each party to pay own costs.
Notes
Includes interest.