Banking law of New York; chapter 2 of Consolidated laws, chapter 369, laws of 1914 - New York., Paperback

• Release Date   7/11/2012
• ISBN-13   9781236671240 | 978-1-236-67124-0
• ISBN   1236671244 | 1-236-67124-4
• Format   Paperback
• Author(s)   New York.
• This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1915 edition. Excerpt: ...the deposit and appointing the legatee executor, the latter is entitled to recover the deposit from the bank, the trustee being made a party to the action. Whitfield v. Greenwich Sav. Bank, 4 Month. L. Bull. 69 (Super. Ct.). Where a husband deposits money in a savings bank in his own name in trust for his wife, the wife cannot maintain an action at law against the bank to recover the deposit. Herpe v. Herpe, 89 Misc. 142. DEPOSITS IN TRUST FOR FICTITIOUS PERSONS belong to the depositor. Washington v. Bank for Savings, 171 N. Y. 166, aff'g 65 App. Div. 388. JOINT DEPOSITS.--The provisions of subd. 3 (except the last sentence which is new) were added to the statute by chapter 247 of the Laws of 1907. The subdivision does not govern accounts opened before its provisions were enacted. Berg v. Keber, 78 Misc. 468, 472. Bonnette v. Molloy, 153 App. Div. 73, modified on a point of practice in 209 N. Y. 167. The language of subd. 3 was intended to do away with the uncertainty attendant upon the rule that a deposit in joint form was not conclusive as to the depositor's intent, and to protect the bank in making payment to either person named or the survivor. See Clary v. Fitzgerald, 155 App. Div. 659. Schneider v. Schneider (No. 1), 122 App. Div. 774. Kelly v. Beers, 194 N. Y. 4®, 55. Bonnette v. Molloy, 153 App. Div. 73, 75-6, modified on a point of practice in 209 N. Y. 167. Berg v. Keber, 78 Misc. 468. West v. McCullough, 123 App. Div. 84ft, aff'd in 194 N. Y. 518. Bradt v. Bradt, 143 App. Div. 863. Even before the last sentence of subd. 3 was added it was held that the effect of these provisions is not merely to protect the bank, and that the single fact, unexplained by other competent evidence, that a deposit is made in the form mentioned in the...