Case Name: In re UNITED STATES TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-01-25
Citations: 102 N.Y.S. 271
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re UNITED STATES TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 102
Pages: 271–275

Head Matter:
(117 App. Div. 178)
In re UNITED STATES TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
January 25, 1907.)
1. Trusts—Deposit in Bank—Death op Beneficiary—Effect.
A trust created by a father by his depositing money in a' bank in his name, in trust for a son, terminates ipso facto on the son’s death in the lifetime of the father, and thereafter the fund remains the property of the father, unimpressed by any trust.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 47, Trusts, § 84.)
2. Witnesses—Competency—Transactions With Decedent.
A wife, seeking, as executrix of her deceased husband, to recover a fund deposited by his deceased father in a bank in his own name, in trust for the husband, is incompetent to testify that the father communicated to the husband the fact that the deposit had been made.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 50, Witnesses, §§ 696, 697.]
3. Trusts—Enfobcemeni>-Actions—Evidence—Admissibility.
In a proceeding by a wife, as executrix of her deceased husband, to recover a fund deposited by his father, since deceased, in a bank in his own name, in trust for the husband, evidence that the husband’s mother contributed some of the money which the father thus deposited was immaterial.
Ingraham, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Surrogate’s Court, New York County.
In the matter of the judicial settlement of the account of the United States Trust Company of New York, as executor of Alonzo W. Balch, deceased. From an order of the circuit court, confirming the report of a referee, Adelaide M. Balch, executrix of David C. Balch, deceased, appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM, LAUGH-DIN, CLARKE, and SCOTT, JJ.
John D. Fearhake, for appellant Adelaide M. Balch.
Evan Shelby and Peter S. Carter, for respondents.

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
Alonzo Balch, the testator, on March 15, 1873, opened two savings bank deposits in different banks, and to the credit of each account deposited $250. Each account was opened in the name of "Alonzo W. Balch in trust for David C. Balch"; the latter being the son of Alonzo. But a single amount was drawn from each account in 1876, and additional sums were paid in to each account at various times. On February 13, 1902, David C. Balch, the son, died, leaving a widow, Adelaide M. Balch, his sole legatee and executrix. The, father, depositor of the funds, died on December 31, 1903, having made no withdrawals from or deposits to the credit of either account since his son's death, or for a long timé prior thereto. There i§ evidence that the attention of Alonzo Balch was called to the bankbooks after his son's death, and shortly before he himself died* but he did no act in relation thereto.
The appellant, as executrix of David C. Balch, deceased, claims to be entitled to receive the sums now on deposit in the savings banks to the credit of the aforesaid accounts. As pointed out by the Court of Appeals in a recent case (Matter of Totten, 179 N. Y. 112, 71 N. E. 748, 70 L. R A. 711), the law respecting so-called "savings bank trusts" is of recent growth, and for some time there was no little doubt as to their true status and character. The -Court of Appeals in the case just cited has established a rule respecting them, which is stated to have been arrived at after much reflection, as follows:
"A deposit by one person o£ his own money, in his own name as trustee for another, standing alone, does not establish an irrevocable trust during thd lifetime of the depositor. It is a tentative trust merely, revocable at will, until the depositor dies or completes the gift in his lifetime by some unequivocal act or declaration, such as delivery of the pass book or notice to the beneficiary. In case the depositor dies before the beneficiary without revocation or some decisive act or declaration of disaffirmance, the presumption arises that an absolute trust was created as to the balance on hand at the death of the depositor."
As this rule was formulated with great care, we are to assume that the words in which it is couched were advisedly chosen. It will be seen upon a careful reading that the trust is, in the first place, described as a "tentative trust," by which we understand a suggested or proposed trust, not completed or consummated. It will also be noted that the subject of the trust, when it finally becomes consummate, is the balance on hand at the death of the depositor. It would seem to follow that until the depositor's death the funds on deposit are impressed with no trust in the sense that any title thereto, actual or beneficial, vests in the proposed beneficiary unless the depositor shall have completed the gift in the manner suggested by the case above cited. As to him the tentative trust remains inchoate and incomplete. The appellant as executrix of David C. Balch can have no right to the moneys on deposit, unless her testator had at the moment of his death some property right in -or title to the money then on deposit to the credit of the accounts. That he had acquired no such right or title as a gift inter vivos is settled by authority. Beaver v. Beaver, 117 N. Y. 421, 22 N. E. 940, 6 E. R. A. 403, 15 Am. St. Rep. 531. There seems to be like authorhw for the proposition that David C. Balch had no such present .right or title at. the time of his death as the proposed beneficiary of a trust. Cunningham v. Davenport, 147 N. Y. 43, 41 N. E. 412, 32 L. R. A. 373, 49 Am. St. Rep. 641. In the latter case one John Cunningham had opened a savings bank account in the name of "John Cunningham, in trust for Patrick Cunningham, his brother." Patrick died before the depositor, and three days later John caused the account to be changed to his own name, and afterwards drew out all the money. Patrick Cunningham's administrator claimed to be entitled to the moneys on deposit at the time of his decedent's death. His claim was disallowed by the Court of Appeals. While not so stated in words by that court, it must have been considered that Patrick Cunningham at the time of his death had no interest in or title to the fund which passed to his legal representative. Otherwise, the latter's claim would have been impregnable. Furthermore, the tentative trust indicated by the manner of the deposit was proposed only for David C. Balch, the depositor's son, who was a young lad when the deposits were first made. There is nothing whatever to indicate that the father intended that, in any event, any person other than his son should become the beneficiary of the accounts. We are of the opinion that the tentative trust suggested by the form in which the savings bank accounts were opened never became consummated so as to vest in David C. Balch, in his lifetime, any present title or interest in the moneys deposited to the credit of the accounts, that upon the death of the sole proposed beneficiary before the depositor, the tentative trust terminated ipso facto, and that the funds on deposit thereafter remained the sole property of the depositor, unimpressed by any trust tentative or consummate, and that no action was necessary on the part of the depositor to terminate the trust. Consequently nothing passed to David C. Balch's executrix, and she can establish no claim to the moneys in question.
_We find no error in the exclusion of evidence offered by the executrix. That she or her husband knew of the fact of the deposit would be wholly immaterial, unless that fact had been communicated by Alonzo Balch, the depositor, and she certainly was incompetent to prove any personal transactions with him. Nor would it be significant or material to show that the husband's mother contributed some of the money which Alonzo Balch deposited.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concur, except INGRAHAM, J., who dissents.