Remington v. Metropolitan Savings Bank

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from an order of the Orphans' Court of Baltimore City, refusing to admit to probate what is alleged to be a codicil to the will of Mrs. Leah Whitaker of that city. There is no contention as to the facts. Mrs. Whitaker executed a last will and testament on the 12th of April, 1877, in which she left the bulk of her estate to the appellant, Mary Remington.

On the fourth of May, 1883, she made a codicil to her will, by which she made some changes in the disposition of her property. The will and codicil was each executed according to the formalities of law, and were duly admitted to probate without contest. She made no disposition of the residue of her property in her will, but left it “to descend or be distributed as provided by law.” There is no dispute as to either the will or the codicil of May, 1883. The proof, however, shows that on the 20th of December, 1878, Mrs. Whitaker opened an account with the Metropolitan Savings Bank of Baltimore, and, from time to time, made certain deposits therein, and at her death there was to her credit the sum of $3938.16.

The bank-book contained an entry, “that it is regarded that this account is opened subject to the by-laws printed on the first and last pages of this book.” One of the by-laws reads as follows: “A book shall be kept at the bank in which every depositor shall be at liberty to appoint some person or persons to whom, in the event of his or her absence or death, the money shall be paid, if not otherwise disposed of.” Mrs. Whitaker had the name of the appellant, Mary Remington, entered in this bank-book under the words, “name of person to whom, in the event of absence or death, the money shall be paid, unless otherwise disposed of,” and this was witnessed ⁵⁴⁸ by James J. Ryan, the teller and assistant book-keeper of the bank. Mrs. Whitaker died on May 9th, 1891. And whether these entries in this bank-book constitute a codicil to her will, and whether they should have been admitted as an additional codicil is the only question in this case.' The present Code,