21 N.W.2d 252 | Wis. | 1945
This was an action commenced on July 27, 1944, by Clarence L. Tucker, administrator of the estate of Augusta Simrow, deceased, against the State Bank of Elcho to recover certain balances alleged to constitute the account of Mrs. Frank Simrow, deceased. The bank interpleaded the surviving husband, son, and daughter of deceased, Frank Simrow, Florence T. Wirth, and Clarence L. Tucker, respectively, and paid the money into court. The action was tried to the *144 court, which on April 19, 1945, entered judgment for plaintiff. Defendant, Frank Simrow, appeals. The facts will be stated in the opinion. The facts are undisputed and are not complicated. Augusta Sands had savings and checking accounts in the State Bank of Elcho. She married Frank Simrow and had the accounts changed to "Mrs. Frank Simrow." On December 1, 1936, after consultation with the bank cashier she signed a paper containing the following directions applicable to the accounts:
"Effective as of this date you are hereby directed to add the following to my savings account No. 659:
"In case of death one half (1/2) of this account to be payable to Frank Simrow, husband; one fourth (1/4) to Florence Tucker Wirth, daughter; one fourth (1/4) to Clarence Tucker, son.
"You are also directed to add the following to my checking account:
"In case of death same to be payable to Frank Simrow, husband.
"(Signed) MRS. FRANK SIMROW, MRS. FRANK SIMROW."Appellant argues that under the facts above there was a contract between the bank and depositor for the benefit of third parties (namely the persons named in Exhibit C), and that under the logic of the decisions in Estate of Staver,
The trial court held that the directions in Exhibit C were ineffective testamentary dispositions by testator. We consider that this ruling was correct. In the Staver Case, supra, this court dealt with the question whether a joint deposit was effectively created without delivery of certificates of deposit evidencing the account. This court held that no delivery was necessary, since the contract between the bank and depositor created the chose in action which was the subject of the gift, as well as an immediate present interest in the persons named as joint tenants; that since no transfer of a chose in action was involved, the terms of the contract itself determined its scope, effect, and validity and there was nothing to deliver and requirements as to gifts of specific personal property are inapplicable. The doctrine of Koppelkam v. First WisconsinTrust Co.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed. *146