TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Brooklyn Trust Co. v. Smart

Brooklyn Trust Company, as Committee of the Property of Elizabeth Smart, an Incompetent Person v. Elizabeth May Smart, Brevoort Savings Bank and Ethelyn Bate

Brooklyn Trust Co. v. Smart, 161 Misc. 857 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1937)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
January 27, 1937
Judges
Furman
Citations
161 Misc. 857293 N.Y.S. 8231937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1542

Opinion of the Court — Furman

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Furman, J.

Obviously it was the intention of the incompetent to use the proceeds of the account in question for the support and maintenance of her daughter. However, the act of creating the account coupled with such intention, standing alone, does not constitute sufficient evidence to warrant the court in declaring an irrevocable trust. There does not appear to be any other affirmative act or declaration on the part of the incompetent which would tend to denote, that she intended to make it irrevocable. On the contrary, it is my opinion that a tentative trust was created. This is borne out by the fact that the incompetent always retained custody of the bank book up to the time she was judicially declared incompetent, and from time to time she withdrew the accrued interest from the account and in one instance she withdrew part of the principal. Furthermore, there is no evidence of her intention to make her daughter a gift of the account. There is no doubt in the mind of the court that the incompetent could, if she were sane, revoke this trust at will. Therefore, it necessarily follows that the court also has the power to revoke it on behalf of the incompetent provided the equity of the situation warrants. I certainly believe that the equity of this particular situation justifies the court in revoking this trust. Judgment will, therefore, be directed for the plaintiff. Submit findings and judgment in accordance herewith.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1942: 21946: 11961: 11976: 119422026peak 1942 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rickel v. Peck2 N.W.2d 140 (Minn. 1942)
  2. In re Guardianship of Overpeck2 N.W.2d 140 (Minn. 1942)
  3. Toledo Trust Co. v. National Bank of Detroit362 N.E.2d 273 (Ohio Ct. App. 1976)
  4. In re the Final Accounting of Borowski28 Misc. 2d 265 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961)
  5. In re Palyo187 Misc. 884 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1946)

Most recent

  1. Toledo Trust Co. v. National Bank of Detroit362 N.E.2d 273 (Ohio Ct. App. 1976)
  2. In re the Final Accounting of Borowski28 Misc. 2d 265 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961)
  3. In re Palyo187 Misc. 884 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1946)
  4. In re Guardianship of Overpeck2 N.W.2d 140 (Minn. 1942)
  5. Rickel v. Peck2 N.W.2d 140 (Minn. 1942)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list