The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-03-06
TRUST WAS NOT
ESTABLISHED.
Decision in Case Of Peoples
Bank Against Jas. H. Webb.
DEPOSITED MONEY AS TRUSTEE
He Named as The Beneficiary Of The Fund
Deposited His Son Fred {. Webb.
COURT SAYS HE'S ENTITLED To MONEY
had no Intention 10 Create a Trust Other Than
Testsmentay Which Would Be Intellectual.
No Notice Given or Acceptance Made.

The appellate court today handed
pies Savings bank VS.. James III. Webb
ct al. The question i'm the case, Judge
Stiness, who writes the opinion Of the
court says, is whether James II. Webb,
by depositing money in a savings bank
in his own name as trustee for his son,
Fred E. Webb, constituted a trust. in
the absence Of any intent on his part
SO to do other than in case of his death,
also in the absence of any other evil
dence of a present intent, either by no
tice to the beneficiary or otherwise
Two points were involved: First,
whether a trust is created by the terms
OF the deposit, as a conclusion of law;
and second, whether the testimony Of
the depositor is now admissible as to
his intention at the time of the deposit
upon the question OF fact. The decision
of the court is that no trust was con-
stituted in this case, and that the
claimant, James II. Webb, is entitled to
the fund in question.
The opinion says. MANY cases of this
kind have arisen under a variety of
circumstances. We find deposits as
trustee for another lin trust for an
other; i'm the name of another; in the
name OF the depositor and another or
the survivor the them with and without
notice TO the one who is named as bene-
ficiary; and without evidence of the in
tent of the deposit. When one appears
to have made a purely gratuitous dis
position of his funds for the benefit OF
another free from any legal or moral
obligation to the donee the act should
be construed with liberaiity rather than
with strictness towards the original
owner. If he has completed a trust or
gift a court must execute it; II IL is in
cobate there is nothing for a court to
carry out The underlying question, in
both trusts and gifts, is the intention
and act of the donor Hence we find
the same general rule in both classes
of case. There must be a present TO
make trust or gift at the time; there
must be a present intent TO make
trust at the time: there must be an exc
cution of the intent by some act, such
as delivery of evidence of title or a no.
tice and acceptance of the trust, and
the intent and act must be such as TO
give a present right or benefit To the
donee. When any of these elements
are wanting, the gift or trust is in
complete.
There is a unanimous agreement
that the creation of trust, as to a
deposit Is question of intention and
so a question of fact. None Of them
hold that a trust is conclusively con-
stituted by the deposit itself. Some go
so far as TO hold that a deposit in the
name of another, without any men
tioning OF a trust. is still open TO in
quiry. Others hold that the trust is
not complete without notice to the do
nee, and acceptance.
"In this case we find that the respon-
dent, James II. Webb. had no intent
TO create a trust, other than testament
tary, which would be Intellectual be-
cause IL was not a trust in presents;
and that there was neither notice TO nor
acceptance by the respondent, Freder-
ick T.. Webb The only thing which
can be claimed i'm this respect is that
the father told his wife what he had
done. In Minor VS.. Rogers, where
woman deposited money i'm her name
as trustee for a boy who worked for
her. and told his father of the fact, the
court said 1t is evident that she did
all that she thought necessary TO De
done TO perfect gift, and supposed that
she had accomplished the object We
think. however that the same effect
should not be given TO statement
made by husband to his wife, assum
ing IL TO be competent. as 10 a state
ment to a stranger. The former Is pre-
sumably confidential: the latter. pre-
sumably evidence OF a purpose or in
tent "