McDevit v. Sponseller

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This controversy grows out af a savings bank deposit of $4,391.16 in the Eredericktown Savings Institution of Frederick, in the name of “James B. Sponseller, in trust for himself and Lucy E. Sponseller, joint owners; subject to the check of either, balance at the death of either to belong to survivor.” James Bradley Sponseller, with his wife Isabella, lived for many years near New Market, in Frederick County. After the death of his wife, in or about 1918, he continued to live alone in the home which had been occupied by them until September 5th, 1928, when he, at the age of seventy-seven years, was removed by his physician, Dr. Hoop, to the hospital at Frederick, to be there treated for “a prostatic enlargement.” His condition at that time was regarded by Dr. Poop as “grave.” It was while he was in the hospital, on September 27th, that the above mentioned deposit was made. Prior to that, the deposit had heen in the name of “J. B. and Isabella Sponseller,” his wife.

James B. Sponseller died, leaving no children or descendants, his heirs and next of kin being a half-brother, Jacob Wesley Sponseller, the husband of Lucy E. Sponseller, and two half-sisters, Fannie P. Mc-Devit and Maria Stull. After the death of James B. Sponseller on November 5th, 1928, Lucy E. Sponseller, as survivor, on the 7th day of November following the last named date, withdrew said deposit and opened another account in the Fredericktown Savings Institution in her own name. Thereafter, letters of administration were granted upon the estate of J ames B. Sponseller to Fannie P. McDevit, whereupon she filed her bill against the appellees, Lucy E. Sponseller, Jacob W. Sponseller, and the said Savings Institution, asking that Lucy E. Sponseller be ordered and directed to pay over to Fannie P. McDevit, as administratrix, the amount of the deposit withdrawn by her. The bill alleged the mental incapacity of J ames B. Sponseller to transfer the deposit or to create the trust declared ⁴⁹⁹ therein.

It also alleged, in substance, that the transfer and the declaration of the trust was in consequence of the undue influence exerted upon him by Lucy E. Sponseller, and that it was never the intention of James B. Sponseller, in making the transfer of the deposit, to create a trust by which the balance thereof, upon his death, should become the property of Lucy E. Sponseller, but that the deposit was made as a matter of convenience in the payment of expenses incurred by him during his illness. These allegations of the bill were denied by Lucy E. Sponseller in her answer to the bill, and the chancellor, after hearing evidence upon issues so presented, dismissed the bill. It is from his decree dismissing the bill that this appeal was taken. The evidence fails to sustain the allegation of the incapacity of James B. Sponseller to make the transfer, or create the trust mentioned in the deposit, or to show that the deposit was made, as it was, because of any undue influence exerted upon him by Lucy E. Sponseller.

It is now well settled by the many decisions of this and other courts that “where a person intends to give property to another, and vest that property in trustees, and declares a trust upon it in favor of the object of his bounty, by such acts, the gift is perfected, and the author of the trust loses all dominion over it; and in such gifts of mere personal estate, the declaration of trust may be made and proved by parol, without the aid of writing. And the cases go the length of maintaining that where the author of the gift retains the legal dominion over the subject of the gift in himself, but fully and completely declares himself to be trustee of the property for the purposes indicated, there he will be treated as trustee, and the object of his bounty will be given the benefit of the trust. In all such cases, the declaration of trust is considered in a court of equity as equivalent to an actual transfer of the legal interest in a court of law; and, if the transaction by which the trust is created be complete, it will not be treated as invalid for want of consideration.” Taylor v. Henry, 48 Md. 550 ; Milholland v. Whalen, 89 Md. 212 , 43 A. 43, 45 ; Snader v. Slingluff, 95 Md. 356 , 52 A. ⁵⁰⁰ 510; Littig v. Vestry of Mt. Calvary Church, 101 Md. 494 , 61 A. 635 ; Baker v. Baker, 123 Md. 41 , 90 A. 776 ; Mathias v. Fowler, 124 Md. 655 , 93 A. 298 ; Stone v. Nat.

City Bank, 126 Md. 231 , 94 A. 657, 660 ; Farmer v. Farmer, 137 Md. 69 , 111 A. 464 ; Coburn v. Shilling, 138 Md. 177 , 113 A. 761 ; Pearre, Executor, v. Grossnickle, 139 Md. 274 , 115 A. 49 ; Gimbel v. Gimbel, 148 Md. 185 , 128 A. 891 ; Sturgis v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 152 Md. 654 , 137 A. 378 . The entry of’the deposit in this case is in the language of the entry in Milholland v. Whalen, supra; the only difference béing in the names of the parties therein. In that case, Chief Judge McSherry, speaking for the court, said: “Such a deposit as we are now dealing with constitutes a valid declaration of trust, in the absence of contravening proof,” or, as otherwise expressed by him in that opinion, “the entry, unexplained, is a sufficient declaration of trust, because it indicates an intention to establish a trust; but this may be rebutted.” Baker v. Baker, supra; Gimbel v. Gimbel, supra.

It being shown that the entry in this case is in form a sufficient declaration of trust, we are now to determine from the evidence whether it was the intention of the donor to create the trust. The question of intention, as we have said, may be proved by paro] without the aid of writing. Milholland v. Whalen, supra; Coburn v. Shilling, supra; Stone v. Nat. City Bank, supra; and, as said by Judge Burke, when speaking for the court in the last-cited case, “trust relations will be implied when it appears that such was the intention.” The evidence reflecting upon the intention of James B. Sponsellor to> create a trust was in substance as follows: At the time James was in the hospital, his brother Jacob was also there, and the latter was frequently visited by his wife, Lucy.

Upon some of her visits to him, she would call in to see his brother, James. She had no conveyance of her own, and, as she lived a number of miles from Frederick, she was largely dependent upon her neighbors and friends to carry her to the hospital. Among these neighbors were Mrs. Main and Mrs. Carpenter. At the time the brothers were in the hospital, Mrs. Main’s sister was there, whom she frequently ⁵⁰¹ visited, and at times she asked Mrs. Lucy Sponseller to accompany her that she might see her husband.

On one of these occasions, when also accompanied by Mrs. Carpenter, they visited James B. Sponseller. Mrs. Carpenter testified that she saw Mr. James B. Sponseller on two> occasions, while at the hospital. She could not recall the dates of those visits. She went with Mrs. MeDevit on the first occasion, and, on the second occasion, on Sunday afternoon, she went with Mrs. Main and Mrs. Lucy Sponseller.

She testified that nothing was said by Mr. Sponseller about his finances on the first visit. When asked if anything was said by Mr. James about them on. the second occasion, her reply was: “Yes, he said Mrs. Sponseller was always the one he looked up to for everything he was, given and helped. He looked up to Mrs. Sponseller. Mow he said he had come to the time he was going to> repay her for all her trouble and kindness, ‘the money that I have I’ll make it. over to myself and Mrs. Sponseller in the bank in our names and when I am gone it is absolutely Mrs. Sponseller’s.’ Q. Was anything said about the bank book, about where the bank, book was or anything of that kind ?

A. I think she told him she had it. Q. Was anything said as to when this money was to be transferred? A. He asked her to call Dr. Roop to bring him in on Monday and they would fix it on Monday,, the next day, that he felt he would fix it for him. Q. Mrs, Carpenter, when this was being said by Mr. Sponseller, what, if anything, did Miss Lucy say?

A. She said to him, ‘Brad,, you don’t mean for that money to be mine?’ He said, ‘I mean for it to be absolutely yours. You did all for me that was done, and my wife.’ ” There was nothing more said, and she did not get to see him any more. Upon cross-examination, she was asked if she wus invited by Mrs. Sponseller to go to the hospital. She replied: “Mo,, sir; Mr. Sponseller was a member of our church. * * "" We went up there to see him as members of our church.

Q. Who invited you to go? A. Mobody. I asked Mrs. Main if I could go in in the afternoon.” They went in Mrs. Main’s automobile. She was then asked: “When you got into the room, did he first talk about his condition ?

A. Yes,. ⁵⁰² Tie did. Q. Who started the conversation then about the money A. Mr. Sponseller. Q. Hobody said a word? A. Hobody said a word to Mr. Sponseller.

Q. Were any of the nurses in there? A. Ho, sir. Q. Hobody but you three? A. Us three, Mrs. Main, Mrs. Sponseller and Mr. Sponseller.

Q. You all three are good friends of Mrs. Sponseller? A. I think I have been in Mrs. Sponseller’s house about four times. I have known her for quite awhile.” Mrs. Main testified that she lived about half a mile from Mr. James Sponseller and about twice that distance from Mrs. Lucy Sponseller; she had visited Mrs. Sponseller, “but not often.” She would go to see her sister at the hospital, and, while there, she, on occasions, visited Mr. James B. Sponseller, and in going to the hospital she would often carry Mrs. Lucy Sponseller, whose husband was also there, as “she had no other way to go. Q. Do you remember when Mrs. Carpenter was along?

A. Yes. Q. Prior to' that time, did Mr. Sponseller ever make any statements to you concerning Lucy or anything about his money? A. Ho