Case Name: BOARD OF DOMESTIC MISSIONS OF THE REFORMED CHURCH IN AMERICA v. MECHANICS' SAV. BANK OF FISHKILL ON HUDSON et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-04-18
Citations: 57 N.Y.S. 582
Docket Number: 
Parties: BOARD OF DOMESTIC MISSIONS OF THE REFORMED CHURCH IN AMERICA v. MECHANICS’ SAV. BANK OF FISHKILL ON HUDSON et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 57
Pages: 582–583

Head Matter:
BOARD OF DOMESTIC MISSIONS OF THE REFORMED CHURCH IN AMERICA v. MECHANICS’ SAV. BANK OF FISHKILL ON HUDSON et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
April 18, 1899.)
Express Trusts—Deposits, in Bank—Evidence.
Where a person, anticipating a fatal result from an operation about to be performed, had her funds in bank deposited in trust for a society, and an entry to that effect was made in her books of deposit and in the bank books,—she having retained her books, but having given directions that would result in their being placed in the custody of the bank fpr delivery to the society,—her intent accompanied her acts, and the title to the funds vested in the society, regardless of the nonexecution of an order to the bank to transfer the same, and a provision in the bank book requiring the drawer of money to present an order signed by the owner, if the book is not presented.
Appeal from special term, Orange county.
Action by the Board of Domestic Missions of the Reformed Church in America against the Mechanics’ Savings Bank of Fish-kill on Hudson, N. Y., and James E. Dean, as executor, etc.,' of Eliza Ann Crowther, deceased. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff (54 N. Y. Supp. 28), defendant Dean appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and CULLEN, BARTLETT, HATCH, and WOODWARD, JJ.
Milton A. Fowler, for appellant.
H. D. Van Orden, for respondent.

Opinion:
HATCH, J.
Under the authorities and the findings of the court below, I am unable to see any basis upon which this judgment can be disturbed. The evidence clearly shows that the deceased, in anticipation of a fatal result attending upon the operation which she was about to undergo, applied to the officer of the bank to'have the fund represented in the books deposited in trust for the plaintiff. This was done, and an. entry to that, effect made in the book of deposit, and also in the books-of the bank. While she retained the custody of the bank books, yet. she made such direction as to their disposition as would place them in the custody of the bank, evidently for delivery to the cestui que trust. Such acts upon her part had the effect of changing the title to the' money, and vesting it in the cestui que trust. As the court has found, and the evidence warrants such finding, the intent accompanied the act; and within the authorities relied upon by the defendant, of Proseus v. Porter, 20 App. Div. 44, 46 N. Y. Supp. 656, and Beaver v. Beaver, 117 N. Y. 421, 22 N. E. 940, the finding of the court below is clearly sustained. Nor do we think that the statement of the officer of the bank that he would prepare an . order for the transfer of the accounts sufficient to defeat the passing of title to the money. Such order was evidently for the protection of the bank, and, had it been in fact executed, there would -have been no further change in the accounts themselves, either in the pass books or on the books of the bank; and that clqarly constituted a declaration of trust in favor of the cestui que trust; . and its effectiveness would not have been added to by the execution of the order. The notice in the bank book, requiring the* person drawing money to present a written order, signed by the owner, when the book is not presented in person, relates exclusively to the drawing of the money, and is for the protection off the bank. It can have no effect upon the declaration of trust made by the donor, nor would the cestui que trust be required ¡. to have an order, if in possession of the books; and it seems com • elusive that, when the donor provided for the delivery of the books-to the bank, she intended the bank to, in turn, deliver them to the person entitled thereto. Nothing further would be needed to enable the possessor to draw the money, as he would then stand . in the position of being the owner of the money and the holder of the bank book, under the rules of the bank, and no order would'. be necessary. We fully agree in the opinion delivered by the.- • learned court below, and can safely rest our decision thereon.
The judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.