Metropolitan Savings Bank v. Murphy

Roberts, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is taken from an order of the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore County, refusing probate to an instrument claimed to be the last will and testament of Michael Murphy, deceased. There is no controversy as to the facts appearing in the record, which can be briefly stated as follows : Michael Murphy became a depositor in the Metropolitan Savings Bank of Baltimore City, on July 8th, 1873, and from time to time thereafter made deposits therein of various sums of money. On ths 5 th of March, 1885, after he had, at intervals, drawn from said bank different ³²⁰ sums of money, there remained to his credit with said bank, a balance of $1,841.45.

This balance was, by his direction, transferred to a new and different account in said bank, which was opened in the names of Michael Muphy and Ann Murphy (his wife), and at the request of said Michael, which was agreed to by said bank, there was written at the head of the account of said Murphy and wife in the bankbook No. 7437, with the appellant the following: “It is agreed that this account is opened subject to the by-laws printed on the jirst and last pages of this book, subject to the order of either. The balance, at the death of either, to belong to the survivor.” The wife survived her husband, and at the time of his death, which occurred March 7th, 1888, the balance with said bank to the credit of the joint account of Murphy and wife amounted with certain accretions of interest, to the sum of $2,482.67. This sum the appellant, in pursuance of the terms of its contract with Murphy and wife, paid oyer to the survivor, Ann Murphy. The only question which we are now called upon to decide is, Had the bank authority in law to make such payment ?

It is the claim of the appellees that the bank acted without authority in making such payment, and the converse of the proposition is maintained by the executor and residuary legatee of Ann Murphy, now deceased. It is contended by the appellant bank that the two.accounts in said bank — that in the name of Michael, and that in the joint names of himself and wife— constituted in fact but one and the same continuing account, and both having been opened with said bank prior to the passage of the Act of 1884, ch. 293, requiring certain formal pre-requisites in the execution of wills of personalty, they are entitled to be considered and construed as testamentary papers ; and that the balance in said bank to the joint credit of the husband and wife at the time of his death passed under the terms of the alleged will to the wife as the survivor. It is claimed upon the part of the appellees that when the individual account in said bank in the name of said Michael was closed, it no longer had any connection ³²¹ with or relation to the joint account in the names of the husband and wife, and became thereby wholly disconnected with this controversy. We concur in this view, and think that the proper construction to be placed upon the two accounts in their supposed relationship is that the closing of the one and the opening of the other left them separate and distinct.

And if this be so, there is but one consequence which follows, and it is this, the joint account in the names of the husband and wife ceased to possess a single testamentary attribute, as the entry at the head of the joint account was not, nor was the account itself written or opened until after the Act of 1884, ch. 293, had gone into effect. So that we entertain no doubt about the legal effect of these accounts as testamentary papers. We are clearly of the opinion that the testamentary character claimed by the appellants as adhering to the first and second accounts by reason of their being one and the same continuing paper is without force and untenable. It is to© plain for controversy that the accounts are separate and