Donor — Donee — Gift inter vivos — Money in bank — Actual or constructive delivery.
On interpleader to determine the title to certain money on certificate of deposit, it appeared that the depositor had made a deposit of three thousand dollars in the name of himself, his wife and his son. Subsequently the wife died and the depositor drew out, on his own signature, a part of the money. The son in the meantime had signed a signature card, but exercised no other authority over the deposit. He claimed, however, that he was entitled to one-third of the original amount as a gift from his father.
Held, that nothing had been done which gave the complete control of the property to the son and that there was no gift and that the money belonged to the depositor.
To constitute a valid gift inter vivos, two essential elements must combine: An intention to make a gift then and there, and such actual and constructive delivery at the same time to the donee as divests the donor of all dominion over the subject and invests the donee therewith.
Argued May 6, 1925.
PER CURIAM, July 9, 1925:
The opinion of President Judge SHAFER, of the common pleas, filed upon sustaining the motion of the plaintiff for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, fully vindicates the conclusion reached. There may be added to the decisions therein cited, Reese v. Philadelphia Trust Co., 218 Pa. 150 and Grady v. Sheehan, 256 Pa. 377.
The judgment is affirmed.