1. Appellant's testatrix gave her receipt for certain personal property delivered to her by her brother shortly before his death, which receipt acknowledged the property to be part of the estate of her brother and not hers, and that in case of her brother's death the property was to be turned over to his heirs in accordance with the terms of his will. Held, that the receipt and the manner in which she kept a record of the fund clearly indicate that she received the property in trust to dispose of according to the provisions of her brother's will.
2. Though an insurance policy delivered to the appellant's testatrix by her brother was payable to her, nevertheless the fact that her receipt said that it was part of her brother's estate and that she deposited the proceeds of the policy with other trust funds mentioned in her receipt, indicate that the policy and its proceeds belong to the estate of her brother.
3. Testatrix bought an apartment house and used her own money in paying for one-half of the cash payment required and the trust funds to pay the remaining one-half. Held, that she held title to the apartment house for the joint benefit of herself and complainant, who is residuary beneficiary under her brother's will.
4. Although there were negotiations between complainant and others after he had learned of the existence of his father's will, which would indicate that complainant might have been willing to waive all claims under that will if certain threatened or intimated opposition to the probate of his aunt's (the appellant's testatrix) will was abandoned, yet there never was any definite arrival at terms or agreement made. Further, complainant was not in possession of all of the evidence later produced at a hearing concerning the manner in which his aunt had used the funds entrusted to her by complainant's father. There is nothing, therefore, to estop complainant from setting up his present claim for an accounting by his aunt's executor, the appellant bank.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion delivered by Vice-Chancellor Fielder in the court of chancery.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, BODINE, PERSKIE, VAN BUSKIRK, DEAR, WELLS, DILL, JJ. 8.
For reversal — DONGES, J. 1.
For modification — PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, HEHER, KAYS, HETFIELD, JJ. 6.