
    (83 Misc. Rep. 377)
    SCHWICKERT v. SOUTH BROOKLYN SAVINGS INSTITUTION et al.
    (Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
    December, 1913.)
    Banks and Banking (§ 306*)—Joint Savings Bank Account—Sufficiency of Evidence. Evidence, in an action to determine title to a savings bank account opened by plaintiffs testatrix with defendant in the name of “Frederick or Karolina Brier,” held to show that testatrix intended to make Frederick, who was her only child and an incompetent, joint owner of the account.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Cent. Dig. §§ 1165, 1169,1183-1188; Dec. Dig. § 306.*]
    Action by Adolph Schwickert, as executor of Karolina Beier, deceased, against the South Brooklyn Savings Institution and another, as committee, etc. Judgment for defendant Irving Katz as committee, etc.
    Deyo & Bauerdorf, of New York City (Howard C. Taylor, of New York City, of-counsel), for plaintiff.
    Leopold Spitz, of New York City, and E. B. Whiting, for defendants.
   BLANCHARD, J.

This is an action of interpleader to determine title to a savings bank account. Karolina Beier, the plaintiff’s testatrix, opened an account in July, 1890, with the Brooklyn Savings Institution in the name of “Frederick or Karolina Beier.” Her deposit was for $500. She added to that sum by further deposits and occasionally drew upon the account. On July 1, 1907, there was due on the account $2,237.83, and that sum, with its increase, is the amount involved in this action. There is no controversy as to the identity of the parties, notwithstanding the discrepancy in names. The sole question to be decided is whether Karolina Beier in opening the account added Frederick’s name for her own convenience merely to enable him, as her agent, to draw for her, or whether she did so for Frederick’s benefit, so as to make him a joint owner.

In view of all the surrounding circumstances which attended the making of the account as well as its form, I am of opinion that Karolina Beier intended to make Frederick a joint owner of the account. They were mother and son, and Frederick was her only child, and it was most natural for her to have money so placed that the son could get it in case of her incapacity for any reason to get it for him. His feebleness of mind would seem to give added strength to this view of her intention. This view of the law finds support in the decisions. Farrelly v. Emigrant Ind. Sav. Bank, 92 App. Div. 529, 87 N. Y. Supp. 54, affirmed 179 N. Y. 594, 72 N. E. 1141. In a case similar to this, and where the account was in the name of mother and son, the Appellate Division of this department says (92 App. Div. at pages 530, 531, 87 N. Y. Supp. at pages 54, 55): “Where * * * the intent appears to create the joint tenancy, its effect is to vest title to the whole fund in the survivor.” See West v. McCullough, 123 App. Div. 846, 108 N. Y. Supp. 493, affirmed 194 N. Y. 518, 87 N. E. 1130; Matter of Totten, 179 N. Y. 112, 71 N. E. 748, 70 L. R. A. 711, 1 Ann. Cas. 900. In line with these decisions is section 114 of the Banking Law (Laws 1892, c. 689) as amended by chapter 247 of the Laws of 1907. It follows that the account belongs to August Frederick B. Beier, an incompetent, and the South Brooklyn Savings Institution, one of the defendants, will pay the moneys due thereon to the defendant Irving Katz, as committee of said incompetent.

Judgment accordingly.  