
    Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Christopher Snyder, as Administrator of Phœbe Snyder, Deceased.
    (Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,
    January, 1902.)
    Trust in personalty — Presumption thereof rebutted by proof o£ donor’s contrary intent.
    A deposit made in a savings bank by a husband in trust for his wife raises a presumption against him, upon his becoming her administrator after her death, that the deposit belongs to her estate but he may rebut this and show that he did not intend to give her the money but deposited it for his own use with the intention of remaining the owner of it.
    Pboceedihg upon the judicial settlement of the accounts of an administrator. Motion to confirm the report of a referee on a hearing had on objections to the account of the administrator.
    Albert R. Moore, for administrator.
    William F. Connell, for contestants.
    Herbert T. Ketcham, referee.
   Ohueoh, S.

This is a motion to confirm the report of a referee on a hearing had on objections to the account of the administrator.

It appears that the administrator, who was the husband of the deceased, deposited twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500) in a savings bank, in trust, however, for the deceased, and the question is whether he should be charged with this amount in his account. Where an account is opened in this manner in a savings bank, and there is no other explanation attending the intention of the depositor, it has been held that it will be presumed that the deposit is the property of the beneficiary, but this presumption is liable to be rebutted, and the sole question then bet-comes the intent of the depositor. Cunningham v. Davenport, 147 N. Y. 43; Board of Missions v. Mechanics’ Savings Bank, 40 App. Div. 120.

The referee has found, from all of the evidence taken before him, that it was not the intention of the depositor to give this money to the deceased, but that it was deposited by him for his own use, with the intention to remain the legal owner thereof, and a careful examination of the evidence sustains the correctness of his decision.

I have examined with care the very carefully drawn briefs of the contestants, but I do not think there is anything in the decisions which would warrant me in holding that this money was the property of the beneficiary.

The motion to confirm the report of the referee is granted. ■

Motion granted.  