Case Name: O'CONNOR v. DUNNIGAN
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-09-10
Citations: 143 N.Y.S. 373
Docket Number: 
Parties: O’CONNOR v. DUNNIGAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 143
Pages: 373–378

Head Matter:
(158 App. Div. 331.)
O’CONNOR v. DUNNIGAN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
September 10, 1913.)
1. Banks and Banking (§ 129*)—Title to Deposit.
Money was deposited in a savings bank by a husband and wife, and the account read: “Payable to Mary Guilfoyle or Joseph Guilfoyle. Pay to either or the survivor of either.” Held, that the form of the deposit indicated an intent to create a joint ownership with the right of survivor-ship.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Cent. Dig. §§ 312— 315, 326, 388; Dec. Dig. § 129.*]
2. Banks and Banking (§ 131*)—Title to Deposit.
Where a husband and wife were joint owners of a bank deposit, a withdrawal of same by the wife, without the consent of the husband, and placing it in her individual name did not divest the interest of the husband.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Cent Dig. §§ 316-318, 333; Dec. Dig. § 131. ]
Woodward, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Rensselaer County.
Action by Thomas O’Connor, executor, against Margaret Dunnigan, executrix. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and judgment directed.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, LYON, HOWARD, and WOODWARD, JJ.
John T. Norton, of Troy, for appellant.
James McPhillips, of Glens Falls (L. B. McKelvey, of Saratoga Springs, and J. W. Atkinson, of Waterford, of counsel), for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § nvmbeb in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
SMITH, P. J.
This action was originally brought by Joseph Guilfoyle against the Cohoes Savings Institution to recover the sum of $3,000 which was on deposit in that institution in the name of Mary Norton Guilfoyle. The defendant, as executrix of the' last will and testament of Mary Norton Guilfoyle, was impleaded. Joseph Guilfoyle thereafter died, and the plaintiff is substituted as his representative.
At the trial Joseph Guilfoyle was allowed to give evidence of personal transactions with his wife, Mary Norton Guilfoyle, which evidence before the decision of the action was properly stricken out by the trial judge. Apart from the evidence stricken out, however, these facts appear without contradiction. The moneys represented by this deposit were originally deposited by Joseph Guilfoyle and his wife Mary in this same institution.in an account which read:
"Payable to Mary Guilfoyle or Joseph Guilfoyle. Pay to either or the survivor of either."
Four days before the death of Mary' Guilfoyle, in the absence of Joseph Guilfoyle, she went to the bank, drew the money, and deposited it to an account in her own name. The next day she made a will.purporting to dispose of the same. Under this will the defendant executrix claims title to the property.
In Kelly v. Beers, 194 N. Y. 49, 86 N. E. 980, 128 Am. St. Rep. 543, one Kate v. Beers deposited in a savings bank moneys in an account which read as follows:
"In account with Kate V. Beers or Sarah E. Kelly, her daughter (the claimant), or the survivor of them."
It was held that this language imported joint ownership by the decedent and claimant with final ownership in the survivor. It was further held in that case that it might be shown by other evidence that it was not the purpose in- making the deposit in this form to create a joint ownership of the fund. In the case at bar the original deposit of these moneys was substantially in the same form as in the case cited. It cannot matter whether the moneys originally came from Joseph Guilfoyle or Mary Guilfoyle, The form of the deposit indicated an intent thereby to create a joint ownership with the right of survivor-ship. There is no evidence in the case which in any way would qualify such intent as is the natural import of the language used. As between the bank and Mary Guilfoyle, she had the right with the pos session of the hook to withdraw the moneys from the account. Her change of the moneys, however, from this account to another in her individual name, in the absence of and as far as appears without the consent of Joseph Guilfoyle, could not divest Joseph Guilfoyle of his joint ownership in the property. It would be preposterous to claim that an appropriation of personal property by one joint owner to his personal use could divest the interest of the other joint owner or could in any way be presumed to have been by the consent of his co-owner. In order to change the joint ownership which presumptively existed, defendant was required to show that the ownership of Joseph Guilfoyle has been voluntarily surrendered. Of this there is no attempted proof. My recommendation, therefore, is that the judgment appealed from be reversed and that judgment be entered awarding the moneys in dispute to the plaintiff, with costs in this court and in the court below. The conclusion of fact of which this court disapproves being the conclusion that Mfary Norton Guilfoyle was at the time of her death the owner of the moneys in question, and this court finds that at all times after the original deposit Joseph Guilfoyle and Mary Guilfoyle were joint owners with the right of survivorship of the deposit in question.
Judgment reversed on law and facts, and judgment directed awarding the moneys in dispute to the plaintiff, with costs in this court and in the court below. The finding of fact of which the court disapproves being the finding that Mary Norton Guilfoyle was at the time of her death the owner of the moneys in question, and this court- finds that at all times after the original deposit Joseph Guilfoyle and Mary Guilfoyle were joint owners with the right of survivorship of the deposit in question. All concur, except WOODWARD, J., dissenting in opinion, and HOWARD, J., not sitting.