Daily Kennebec journal., 1906-02-22
RESCR|PTS,
Important Decisions Were
Sent Down Tuesday.
Bath Savings Institution vs..
Sanford |. Fogg, Ex.
Matiawamkeag Log Driving Co. Wins
Against George |. Byron.

Judge WhitahOuSe handed down tw7
important reScriptS Tuesday, and bOtll
are of considerable interest. They are
as follows:
BATH SAVINGS INSTITUTION in
Executor, ct al.
WhitehCuse, j.
This is bill of interpleader filed by
the Bath Savings Institution asking
that the defendant. Sanford l.. Fogg
as Executor of the will of Jane Cruik-
shank on the one side and the defen-
dant, Elizabeth Hilliard, on the other
side. be required to interplead respect
ing the ownership of a deposit of
$l019.33 standing on the books of the
bank with the following entries. 10
wit:
Payable to either,
1852 Bath Savings Institution. DIR.
To Elizabeth IIilliard. Ballycassiddy.
Ireland. county of Fermanagh, or Jane
Cruikshank, Bath.
% All OF the attributes of an abso-
lutte gift in present. are obviously
wanting. Although by the terms of
the deposit the fund Was made paya-
~ ttllltT vi lIl' SlStcIS, IL NdS
not i'm fact subject to the disposal of
Mrs. Hilliard. for the reason that Mrs.
Cruikshank retained possession OF the
deposit book without which withdraw
ais could no; be made. There was no
delivery Of either The deposit itself or
OF the evidence of the deposit.
Again ii is manifest from the terms
OF the deposit. the accompanying dec
lGlations and inquiries of Mrs. Cruik-
shank and her subsequent conduct,
that she never had any intention of re-
linquishing all present and future do
mInion and control over this fund.
Her express wish at the time was TO
have the deposits made upon terms
and conditions that would operate as
a transfer OF the fund at her decease.
The evidence 1iScloScS no intention on
her part to divest herself of the legal
title before that time. There was not
a perfected gift in her lifetime.
(2) Jane Cruikshank never made any
declaration of trust OF any kind in fa-
vor of her sister. with respect to the
deposits i'll the Bath Savings Bank,
either at the time of making any of
the deposits. or any subsequent time.
Notwithstanding the repeated sugGes-
tioi, lof tlie Treasurer of the bank that
if the depositor wished TO make sure
that her sister would receive the fund
at her decease it would be advisab
to give her notice OF the deposit and de-
liver the book to her or TO some per-
son for her, the evidence fails to show
that notice Of this deposit was ever
communicated TO Mrs. Hilliard before
the decease Of the depositor. and af-
firmatively shows that the deposit book
was never sent to Mrs. Hiiliard but was
kept in the possession of Mrs. Cruik-
shank or under her control until the
time of her deceaSe. 1t is not indiS-
pensable. it is true, that the beneficia- =
ry should have notice of the creation
of Il trust. a complete and valid trust
with respect to personal property may
undoubtedly be created by an unequi-
written or oral. that he holds the prop
erty in trust for specified purpose,
without notice to the beneficiary
Neither was it Indispensable to the Gre
alton Of n trust in this case that the
deposit book should be delivered to the
be neficiary. Indeed the surrender of
all dominion and control over the prop
city might have been entirely incon-
sistent with the purposes of the trust.
Even the power Of revocation may be
perfectly consistent with the creation
OF a valid trust.
From all the facts and circumstances
| rela ting to this deposit the conclusion
is Irresistible that Mrs. Cruikshank's s
Intention was that this gift to her sister