Summary
finding evidence to support an inter vivos gift of savings certificates from the donor to two minor children, even though the certificates were payable to both the donor and the children and the children's mother asked the donor to keep the certificates in his safety deposit box, to which the mother did not have access
Summary of this case from Walsh v. BowenOpinion
22070.
ARGUED JUNE 10, 1963.
DECIDED JUNE 18, 1963.
Interpleader, etc. Chatham Superior Court. Before Judge Harrison.
Allyn M. Wallace, for plaintiff in error.
Hitch, Miller, Beckmann Simpson, R. M. Hitch, Frank O. Downing, contra.
A gift is complete when a donor, with intent to give, delivers possession of a chattel into the possession of a done and the latter accepts the gift. A parent may accept on behalf of minor children. Where there was some evidence showing all the requisites of a valid gift, the trial judge did not err in overruling the general grounds of the motion for new trial.
ARGUED JUNE 10, 1963 — DECIDED JUNE 18, 1963.
The Citizens Southern National Bank brought its bill in the Chatham Superior Court praying that Allyn M. Wallace, executor of the estate of Henry W. Griffin, and Michael Anthony and Joseph Thomas Moore, minors, be required to interplead. The petition alleged that Wallace, as executor, and the two minors were claiming two self-renewal savings certificates issued by the bank in the amount of $2,000 each; that one of the certificates was payable to Henry W. Griffin of Joseph Thomas Moore, while the other was payable to Michael Anthony Moore or Henry W. Griffin; that the petitioner bank stands ready to pay over the property, pursuant to order of the court, but the character of the claims renders it doubtful or dangerous for the bank to honor payment upon presentment by either of the claimants.
The defendant executor denied the material allegations of the petition with the exception of those relating to jurisdiction, the character and form of the certificates, and that he claimed such certificates in his representative capacity.
The defendants Moore through their guardian ad litem and mother, Thelma B. Moore, answered and set out that they were entitled to the non-negotiable certificates as their own property; for, although such certificates were found in the safety deposit box of the deceased, they were kept there only for safe keeping since Henry W. Griffin had relinquished all control over them and "it was a valid gift in the eyes of the Law."
A succinct statement of the evidenced adduced upon the trial of the case is as follows.
Mrs. Thelma B. Moore testified to a state of facts showing a friendly relation between her and the family during the deceased's life. She gave as her version of the events that transpired that Henry Griffin gave and delivered the certificates to her two minor children, individually, "the last of July," 1961 (the certificates were issued July 24, 1961), and that she kept them for her children until February or March, 1962, when she asked the deceased if she could put them into his safety deposit box for safe keeping, which he allowed her to do. There was additional testimony as to the relationship between Mrs. Moore and the deceased and that he reposed great confidence in her. Mrs. Moore stated that she accompanied him on numerous occasions to the bank and went through the papers in his safety deposit box with him.
Her husband and her neighbor testified to substantially the same thing as regards the delivery of the certificates, although stating that the deceased gave Mrs. Moore the certificates for the children. It is not necessary to recount all this evidence as it was merely corroborative of her testimony as to the vital issues.
There was no testimony directly denying Mrs. Moore's evidence, but only that which might, by inference, show to the contrary. The certificates were found still in Mr. Griffin's safety deposit box after his death on May 4, 1962. Bank employees stated that the deceased was always present when Mrs. Moore entered the vault, that the box was in his name only and that she would have been denied access alone.
Mrs. Ward, an employee of the petitioner bank, testified as to the facts relating to Henry Griffin's purchases of the certificates and that he was alone at the time; further, that he had endorsed both of the interest checks issued on January 24, 1962, in the amount of $30. However, the checks were sent to 3506 Skidaway Road, the address on the two certificates and that of the two minors, and Mrs. Moore gave as the reason for the deceased's receiving the interest: "Well, I didn't take his money because I wasn't after his money."
The jury found for Michael Anthony and Joseph Thomas Moore. Subsequently, a nunc pro tunc judgment was entered on such verdict. The defendant executor moved for a new trial on the general grounds only. From the trial judge's order denying that motion he excepted and brings to this court his writ of error.
The plaintiff in error's sole contention is that there was insufficient evidence to show that the deceased made a gift, within the contemplation of the law, of the certificates to the two minor children.
The requisites of a valid gift are set out in Code § 48-101: "To constitute a valid gift, there shall be the intention to give by the donor, or some act accepted by the donee, and delivery of the article given or some act accepted by the law in lieu thereof." Further, Code § 46-102 provides that "A parent, guardian, or friend may accept for an infant."
There was evidence to the effect that the deceased made an unconditional gift to the children. All the legal requirements were met: an intention to give; a renunciation of the right of ownership by the giver, without the power of recipient: acceptance by the possession by the parent for them. Mims v. Ross, 42 Ga. 121; Burt v. Andrews, 112 Ga. 465 ( 37 S.E. 726); Bowen v. Holland, 182 Ga. 430 (2) ( 185 S.E. 720). That after the certificates were delivered to Mrs. Moore and accepted by her as a gift to the children she placed them, at a later time, in the possession of the donor, Mr. Griffin, for sale keeping did not affect the validity of the gift.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.