Opinion ID: 1845467
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: joint accounttwo or more signatures required

Text: All moneys now or at any time deposited by us, with this bank to the credit of this account, are and shall be so deposited by us and received by the bank upon the following terms and conditions of repayment namely: that the amount thereof shall be paid by the bank to us, or upon the written order of any one such persons so entitled to payment; and without reference to the original ownership of the moneys deposited, all withdrawals must contain one of the following signatures. X Chris Parkening Chris Parkening and Anna Parkening Haffke Chris Parkening and Anna Parkening Haffke. The signature Chris Parkening written on the top line of the top half of the card was written by Anna Parkening Haffke without the consent of Chris Parkening. At the time the exhibits 88 and 89 were made, Chris Parkening was 85 years, 10 months, and 10 days of age. The contention of the executor, in addition to those previously determined, is that the manner and form in which exhibit 89 was signed by Anna Parkening Haffke constituted a forgery on her part and invalidates the instrument as to the right of survivorship. The president of the Plattsmouth State Bank with which Chris Parkening had done business since 1921, and who was known by the banker since 1917, testified that prior to October 1942, Chris and Bertha Parkening had an account with the bank. On the date exhibit 89 was presented to the bank, Anna Parkening Haffke, William Haffke her husband, and Chris Parkening were present. This witness asked Chris what he wanted to do about the signature on the card, to which Chris replied that he wanted to fix the account so that either he or his daughter could withdraw the money at any time. The banker then took the card, went to the ledger sheet, and put Anna's name at the top of the sheet along with Chris' name. He did not see the signatures when they were written on the card. He further testified that at the time Chris was competent to transact such business. Section 8-167, R.S. 1943, provides: When a deposit in any bank in this state is made in the name of two or more persons, deliverable or payable to either or to their survivor or survivors, such deposit, or any part thereof, or increase thereof, may be delivered or paid to either of said persons or to the survivor or survivors in due course of business. In the case of McConnell v. McCook Nat. Bank, 142 Neb. 451, 6 N.W.2d 599, 601, this court said: It is clear from our decisions in construing this statute (section 8-164, Comp.St. 1929, now section 8-167, R.S. 1943) that we have held: (1) The act is intended for the protection of the bank; (2) it fixes the property rights of the persons named, unless the contrary appears from the terms of the deposit; (3) that, when a deposit is made in a bank payable to either of two or more persons, either expressly as joint tenants with right of survivorship or without those qualifying words, upon the death of one of the payees the deposit is payable to the survivor or survivors of those named in the deposit. The court further said: We are now asked to modify our decisions and hold that a deposit payable to one person `or' another without words of joint tenancy or right of survivorship is not within the provisions of the statute. To so hold would require us to overrule the Johnson case. (In re Estate of Johnson, 116 Neb. 686, 218 N.W. 739.) In that case,   we expressed our views of the legislative intent. We reiterated that statement in the Kehl case   . (Kehl v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 126 Neb. 695, 254 N.W. 397)    We feel that the legislature intended by this act to get away from the `confusion, contradiction and perplexing distinctions' and the uncertainties, resulting in such transactions, occasioned by the judicial opinions in the various states on this subject. We believe that the foregoing opinion and the cases on the subject in this jurisdiction cited therein are conclusive in the instant case. The evidence is in preponderance that Chris Parkening on October 28, 1942, intended to create in the Plattsmouth State Bank a joint account with the right of survivorship in Anna Haffke. Without again setting out the testimony, it seems clear that on several occasions, to several different witnesses, he made declarations to that effect, and the terms of exhibit 89 are clearly within the range of section 8-167, R.S. 1943. For the reasons given herein, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, except that part of the judgment requiring Anna Haffke, the cross-appellant, to account to the executor for the funds in the Plattsmouth State Bank. It is hereby ordered and directed that judgment be entered in the district court in this cause for the cross-appellant on her cross-appeal, in accordance with this opinion. Affirmed in part and in part reversed and remanded with directions. CARTER, J., participating on briefs.