Case Name: ANSON v. SAVINGS BANK OF UTICA
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-03-05
Citations: 140 N.Y.S. 1017
Docket Number: 
Parties: ANSON v. SAVINGS BANK OF UTICA.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 140
Pages: 1017–1018

Head Matter:
ANSON v. SAVINGS BANK OF UTICA.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
March 5, 1913.)
Evidence (§ 269 )—Savings Bank—Joint Deposit—Statutory Provisions —Evidence.
Banking Laws (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 2) § 144, provides that a deposit in the name of the depositor “and” another person, to be paid to-either or the survivor, shall be the property of such persons as joint tenants. Held, that where a savings bank deposit was made to the credit of either of two persons, either or the survivor to draw, evidence of declarations and oral statements by them, made after the deposit, was admissible to show that it was not intended that they should own the deposit as joint tenants.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 1063-1067; Dec. Dig. § 269.*]
FoOte and Kruse, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Oneida County..
Action by Albert N. Anson, as administrator, etc., against the Savings Bank of Utica, to recover on a savings bank deposit. The court excluded certain declarations and oral statements of the persons in whose names the deposit was made, offered to show that the parties were not joint owners of the deposit, and from a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, on the ground that it was error to exclude the offered evidence.
D. E. Powers, of Utica, for appellant.
Charles A; Miller, of Utica, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to Sate, & Rep'r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. Held, that it was error to exclude the offered evidence. See opinion of Robson, J., in case of Clary, as Adm'x, v. Fitzgerald, 140 N. Y. Supp. 536, handed down this day. All concur, except KRUSE and FOOTE, JJ., who dissent in a memorandum by FOOTE, J.