Court Opinion

ID: 9735931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:37:10.763282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:51.943139
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Staton, J.
I dissent for the reason that the signing of signature cards or other standard forms is at best an artificial distinction. It should not be used to thwart the clear, obvious and unequivocal intent of the donor. In Ross, Executor v. Watkins (1923), 80 Ind. App. 487, 498, 141 N. E. 477, 480, this Court stated that:
“The intention of a donor ‘when clearly ascertained and fairly consummated, within the meaning of well established rules, is not to be thwarted by a narrow and illiberal construction of what may have been intended for and deemed by him a sufficient delivery. The rule which requires a delivery of the subject of the gift is not to be enforced arbitrarily.’ ”
The trial court’s judgment should be reversed.
Note. — Reported in 288 N. E. 2d 174.