TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Mayer v. Davis

In re DAVIS' ESTATE. MAYER v. DAVIS

Mayer v. Davis, 103 N.Y.S. 946 (1907)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 19, 1907
Judges
Hooker
Citations
103 N.Y.S. 946119 A.D. 35
Headnotes
Gifts—Deposits in Bank in Trust—Delivery of Pass Book. A completed gift is shown where a wife deposits money in a bank in her name “in trust for” her husband, and after his death the pass book is found in his safe deposit vault. [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 24, Gifts, §§ 53, 54.]
Summary
Appeal from Surrogate’s Court, Kings County. Judicial settlement of the accounts of Marian Davis and another, administrators of William H. Davis, deceased. From an adverse decree, Florence E. Mayer and others appeal; the administrators being the respondents. Modified and affirmed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hooker

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

HOOKER, J.

So far as appealed from, the decree of the surrogate should be reversed. In Matter of Totten, 179 N. Y. 112, 125 , 71 N. E. 748 , 752 the court has laid down the following rule by which controversies of this character must be decided:

“A deposit by one person of his own money in his own name as trustee for another, standing alone, does, not establish an irrevocable trust during the lifetime of the depositor. It is a tentative trust merely, revocable at will, until the depositor dies or completes the gift in his lifetime by some unequivocable act or declaration, such as delivery of the pass book or notice to the beneficiary.”

William H. Davis, the beneficiary, died before the depositor, Marian Davis, and before a revocation of the trust. Standing alone, the mere deposit of her money in her name as trustee for him did not establish, under the rule in the Totten Case, an irrevocable trust; but the finding of the pass book in the safe deposit vault of the beneficiary necessarily implies that there was noticé by the depositor of the trust to the beneficiary. Inasmuch as notice to the beneficiary is one of the examples of an unequivocable act or declaration by which the depositor completes the gift, used by the Court of Appeals to illustrate *947 the rule, we must hold that the notice to William H. Davis completed his wife’s gift to him and rendered the trust irrevocable. The funds, therefore, belonged to the deceased at the time of his death, and should be accounted for by the administrators.

The decree must be modified, by directing that the administrators account for this money, with costs to the appellants to be paid out of the estate. All concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1954: 119542026peak 1954 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Emigrant Industrial Sav. Bank122 F. Supp. 547 (S.D.N.Y. 1954)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Emigrant Industrial Sav. Bank122 F. Supp. 547 (S.D.N.Y. 1954)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re the Accounting of Totten, 71 N.E. 748 (N.Y. 1904) 411

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