Case Name: Frederick Rivenburgh, Appellant, v. The First National Bank of Middleburgh, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905
Citations: 103 A.D. 64
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frederick Rivenburgh, Appellant, v. The First National Bank of Middleburgh, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 103
Pages: 64–71

Head Matter:
Frederick Rivenburgh, Appellant, v. The First National Bank of Middleburgh, Respondent.
Instrument of gift of a deposit in a bank executed, by the donor shortly before his death — when it is effective to transfer the title — a consideration of the care and burial of the donor is sufficient — what proof justifies a recovery of the amount of the certificates of deposit.
March 5, 1904, John D. King, who was then sick at the house of Frederick Rivenburgh, directed one Safford to draft an instrument giving Rivenburgh what he had for taking care of him and burying him. SaSord thereupon prepared the following instrument:
“ Gilboa, March 5, 1904.
“Iu the year of our Lord, nineteen hundred and four, 1, John D. King, do give all my property, goods and chattels with one hundred and thirty dollars in the Middleburgh Bank, for taking care of me through my sickness, all to Frederick Rivenburgh, but said King holds the property long as he lives.
his
“ JOHN D. X KINO.
mark
" Witnesses: her
“LanyX Rivenburgh,
mark
his
“Frederick X Rivenburgh.”
mark
The instrument was executed and delivered to Safford in the presence of Rivenhurgh and thereafter Rivenburgh cared for King until his death, which occurred March 20, 1904, and paid his funeral expenses. After King’s death Safford delivered the instrument in question to Rivenburgh, who found among King’s effects two certificates of deposit issued by the Middleburg Bank, one for §100 and one for §30. These certificates were, by their terms, payable to King’s order on their return properly indorsed. Rivenburgh indorsed upon the certificates the name of King by himself and also indorsed his own name thereon and took them to the hank, which refused to pay the same.
Held, that Rivenburgh was entitled to recover the amount of the certificates from the hank;
That it was not necessary to decide whether the delivery of the instrument to Safford constituted a valid gift to the plaintiff causa mortis, as the actual performance of the services rendered to King by. Rivenburgh and the latter’s payment of King's burial expenses constituted a sufficient consideration for the transfer.
Semble, that if the certificates of deposit had been assigned to Rivenburgh without being indorsed by King, Rivenburgh, upon proof of the assignment and upon his own indorsement, would he entitled to recover the amount thereof. Parker, P. J., dissented.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Frederick Rivenburgh, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Schoharie on the 27th day of June, 1904, upon the dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court after a trial at the Schoharie Trial Term, and also (as stated in the notice of appeal) from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 27th day of June, 1904, directing the dismissal of the said complaint.
Upon the 5th day of March, 1904, John D. King was sick at the house of the plaintiff, where, upon the 20th day of March thereafter he died. Upon said fifth day of March he executed and delivered to one Safford a paper, of which the following is a copy:
“ Gilboa, March 5, 1904.
“ In the year of our Lord, nineteen hundred and four, I, John D. King, do give all'my property, goods and chattels with one hundred and thirty dollars in the Middleburgh Bank, for taking care of me through my sickness, all to Frederick Rivenburgh, but said King holds the property long as he lives.
his
“ JOHN D. X KING.
mark
“ Witnesses:
her
“ Lany X Rivenburgh,
mark
his
“ Frederick X Rivenburgh.”
mark
This paper was drawn by Safford upon King’s statement to him that he wanted something drawn up to give Mr. Rivenburgh what he had for taking care of him and burying him. It was delivered to Safford in the presence of the plaintiff, who, as it appears, was a witness of the paper, and thereafter Rivenburgh cared for the plaintiff during the remainder of his sickness, and paid the expenses of his burial. It is undisputed that the fair compensation for the care and expenses incurred in the burial was the amount of about $200, and it appears that the certificates in suit constituted the only property of any value left by King. Five or six dollars only was paid by King to the plaintiff during his lifetime.
At the time of the execution, of this instrument King had no moneys upon deposit in the Middleburg bank except such as were-represented by the two certificates of deposit in suit, one for $100 and one for $30. After the death of King, Rivenburgh found these certificates among his effects, took them to the bank, indorsed the name of King by Rivenburgh, and indorsed his own name. He thereupon made affidavit of his interest in the certificates and demanded the amount thereof from the bank. The bank refused payment, and this action is brought to recover the amount of such certificates. Upon the trial the judge presiding dismissed the plain tiff’s complaint. From the judgment entered upon such order the plaintiff has here appealed. Further facts appear in the opinion.
George M. Palmer and W. H. Albro, for the appellant.
G. L. Danforth, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Smith, J.:
The certificates of deposit sued upon are in the usual form, reciting that King had deposited in the bank $100 and $30, payable to the order of himself on return of certificate properly indorsed. If these certificates have been assigned to plaintiff, though without the indorsement of King, upon proof of the assignment and upon his own indorsement, the plaintiff would seem to be entitled to recover. (Savage v. Bevier, 12 How. Pr. 166; Neg. Inst. Law [Laws of 1897, chap. 612], § 79.)
It is not necessary here to decide whether the delivery of this instrument to Safford constituted a valid gift to plaintiff eausa mortis. The assignment of the certificates was given to Safford to be delivered to plaintiff after King's death in payment for the services of plaintiff in caring for him during his sickness and for the expenses of his burial. These services were rendered by plaintiff and the expenses incurred presumptively upon the faith of the paper which Safford held. The consideration of the transfer was not the plaintiff's promise to perform the service or to incur the expense. It was the actual performance of the services and the actual provision for the burial. After the performance of such services plaintiff became entitled upon the death of King to the delivery of the instrument held by Safford and to the certificates.
The paper recites that King is to hold the property as long as he lives, and Safford was requested by King to hold the paper and deliver it to Rivenburgli after King's death. While the authority to Safford was revocable if King recovered from his sickness, it was otherwise absolute. King did not recover. The authority was not revoked and the paper executed by King was properly delivered by Safford to plaintiff after King's death. The judgment should, therefore, be reversed.
All concurred, except Parker, P. J., dissenting in opinion.