161 N.Y. 554 | NY | 1900
On the 10th day of October, 1892, the plaintiff's intestate, Catherine Sullivan, deposited with the Chemung Canal Bank the sum of $2,000, and received therefor a certificate of deposit in the following form:
"$2,000. ELMIRA, N.Y., Oct. 10th, 1892.
"Catherine Sullivan has deposited in this bank two thousand dollars, payable one day after date to the order of herself, or in the case of her death to her niece, Catherine Sullivan, of Utica, upon the return of this certificate, with interest at 3 per cent per annum, if held six months. Not subject to check.
"No. 26638. J.H. ARNOT, V.P."
She retained possession of said certificate until her death, which occurred on the 8th day of February, 1893, and after her death it was found among her papers.
This action was originally brought against the individuals who composed the firm known as the Chemung Canal Bank, and was upon their application continued against the present defendant, who claims to be entitled to the moneys represented by said certificate. Upon the trial oral evidence was *557 adduced to show, and the court found, that it was the intention of the plaintiff's intestate to have the said certificate of deposit so drawn that in case of her death, without having withdrawn the deposit, it could be drawn by the defendant. The trial court also found that "no attempt was made by the plaintiff's intestate to create a trust to exist during the life of the said intestate. Until her death the bank was her debtor." Defendant's father, whose real name was Brown, was a nephew of the plaintiff's intestate, and lived with her for thirty-six years, taking the name of Sullivan, and being regarded and treated as an adopted son, although no legal adoption was ever consummated. The defendant was born in the house of plaintiff's intestate, in Elmira, and lived there for four or five years after her birth, at the end of which period she removed with her parents to the city of Utica. Plaintiff's intestate, who was childless, exhibited and expressed on all occasions great fondness for the defendant, and at the time of said deposit stated to the teller of said back that "she wanted it fixed to herself, or in case of her death to her niece, Catherine Sullivan, of Utica."
In asserting her claim to this fund the defendant invokes several distinct principles of law, the first of which is that the deposit of this money and the issuance of this certificate constituted a valid contract between plaintiff's intestate and the bank for the benefit of the defendant. Buchanan v. Tilden
(
It is further urged on behalf of the defendant that the transactions between the plaintiff's intestate and the bank *558
created a trust under which the bank became a trustee for the defendant, subject to a power of revocation which resided in the plaintiff's intestate during her lifetime; or at least that the plaintiff's intestate constituted herself a trustee for the benefit of the defendant, subject to the same power of revocation. The inherent weakness of both of these propositions lies in the fact that in the transactions between the plaintiff's intestate and the bank there was no immediate and fixed change of title to the fund. There was no intention, either expressed in terms or to be implied from the nature of the transaction, to immediately transfer the title of the fund to the defendant, or to the bank, except as the depository and debtor of the depositor. This is the essential difference between the position of the defendant and the cestuis que trust in the cases cited in support of her contention. As was said by Chief Judge CHURCH in Martin v. Funk (
An attempt to enter upon a detailed review of the many authorities upon the subject of gifts inter vivos and parol trusts would be an unprofitable task, as the application of the controlling principle herein depends upon the particular facts of each case.
The judgment of the court below should be affirmed, without costs.
PARKER, Ch. J., GRAY, BARTLETT, MARTIN, VANN and CULLEN, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.