Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1916-06-10
DECREE BY JUSTICE
KING IN TETLOW CASE

day handed down decision in the case
of Ellen j. Tetlow. appellant from de-
cree Of the judge Of probate, ordering
the appellant to inventory and account
for as part Of the estate Of Amanda
NJ Kent, late Of Fayette, the amount
which stood to the credit Of a joint sur
vivorship account in the Providence In
stitution Of Savings on Jan. IS. 1911.
when she withdrew the same, the sum
Of s61Ss,90, together with interest there
on at per cent, compounded semi-an-
nually from Jan. /, 1911, to the date Of
decree.
The rescript is as follows:
Kennebec. S. Ellen j. Tetlow. appel
liant from decree of judge Of probate.
February 9. 1909 Amanda NJ Kent
made a deposit in the Providence 1nsti-
tuition for Savings of Providence, r. l.,
in the names Of Amanda M. Kent or
Ellen ]. Tetlow. or the survivor Of
them" Mrs. Kent died August 81. 1910
testate Her will was proved and al
lowed in the probate court for Kennebec
county. Maine. and the executives
r. Crane were appointed and qualified.
AZ the llIIc VI MIS- AcuI ucdtH TIE
amount to the credit of said bank de-
post was $61ss.9o, which Ellen ]. Tet-
low thereafter drew out Of said bank.
claiming title thereto. Thereupon, on
petition Of the appellees and after hear
ing. the judge Of probate for said coun-
ty decreed that the amount of said
deposit should be inventoried and ac-
counted for as part of the estate Of Mrs.
Kent. From that decree Ellen ]. Tet-
low appealed, and the case is reported
to this court for determination on SO
much of the evidence as is legally ad-
MISSILE.
The appellant asserts title to the
fund in question: l. AS the surviving
joint tenant and owner of the deposit,
claiming that such joint tenancy was
Kent to her; and CD that, if the evil
dence is not sufficient to establish such
joint tenancy in the deposit by gift
inter vivos, there was a gift. causa NOR
tbs. of the deposit to her.
In behalf Of the appellees it is claim
ed that the joint survivorship deposit
was made by Mrs. Kent with no inten-
ton to make present gift to Mrs. Tet-
low of an interest as joint tenant in the
deposit or that any title or beneficial
interest in the money should pass TO
Mrs. Tetlow until Mrs. Kent's DEATH
but that the deposit was so made as
matter of convenience in order that Mrs
Tetlow. living in Providence, could
draw from the deposit such sums as
Mrs. Kent, who lived in Maine, should
from time to time require, and also
with the intent and belief that. if the
deposit was SO made, then, in the event
Of Mrs. Kent's death before she has
made satisfactory testamentary dis
position Of her property, any balance of
this deposit would pass to Mrs Tetlow
and not go to the heirs at law Of Mrs.
Kent.
Held
!. The deposit having been made in
Rhode Island and tn transactions con-
nected Herewith having occurred there
the law of that state undoubtedly. gov
ems in the determine ton of the APPEL
lant's claims of title to the fund as the
surviving joint tenant Of the deposit.
2. To constitute valid gift inter
vlvos 1t must be absolute. irrevocable
and complete. whether the donor die or
not. and the subject Of it must be de-
llvered to the donee so that the donor
parts with all present and future do
minion over it.
g. II the intention be that the gift
Is to take effect only at the death Of
the donor. it is Intellectual. because that
would be an attempted testementarv
disposition Of property which can be
accomplished by means Of a valid will
4. To tablish the gift Interviews
claimed by the appellant the evidence
must show that Mrs. Kent intended
IN making the survivorship deposit to
give Mrs. Tetlow a then absolute and
irrevocable joint tenancy and owner
ship In the deposit, thereby divesting
herself OF all present and future do
minion and control Of the interest and
right so given, and to deprive herself
or the right to dispose of the fund by
a last will and testament.
5. Testimony as to statements made
by Mrs. Kent, after the joint survivor
ship deposit was made, to the effect
that the deposit was hers and that she
intended to dispose Of it by her will,
is incompetent and inadmissable upon
the issue whether it was her intention
in making the deposit to give Mrs.
Tetlow joint tenancy and ownership
therein. If made they were self-serv-
ing statements. A donor cannot depos-
it his own gift by declarations made
after 1t has later effect.
6. When Immediately after a Joint
deposit is made, the de-
positor makes last will and testament
numerous specific pecuni-
airy bequests, aggregating $4,000, and
having substantially no property other
than the survtvorship deposit from
which those pecuniary requests could
be paid, those facts and circumstances
not being in controversy, are compe-
tent and admissible as evidence, and
are entitled to much weight, in the de-
termination of the question whether
the survivorship deposit was in part
made with the intention on the part Of
the depositor thereby to divest herself
of her right to dispose of the fund by
a last will and testament.
Z. 1t is the opinion Of the court that
the evidence in this case does not
justify a conclusion that Mrs Kent
made the joint survivorship deposit
u{th ipfonf IN ciyo Mrc Ta%1ou, n