Talbot v Cody

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 04 November 1875
• Court: High Court of Chancery (Ireland)
• Date: 04 November 1875

Rolls.

TALBOT

and

CODY.

Abbott v. BlofieldENR Cro. Jac. 644.

Buckley v. CollierENR 1 Salk. 114.

King v. BasinghamENR 8 Mod. 199.

Lloyd v. PugheELR L. R. 8 Ch. App. 88.

Fleet v. PerrinsELR L. R. 8 Ch. App. 88.

Cahill v. M'DowallELR L. R. 4 Q. B. 500.

Tomkins v. AshbyUNK 13 Ir. C. L. R. 481.

Lloyd v. Pughe 6 B. & Cr. 541.

Foley v. HillELR L. R. 14 Eq. 241.

M'Lean v. LonglandsENR 2 H. L. C. 28.

Earl of Stafford v. Buckley 5 Ves. 79.

Gaskell v. GaskellENR 2 Ves. Sen. 170.

Walter v. Hodge 2 Swanst, 92.

Richards v. DelbridgeELR L. R. 18 Eq. 11.

Johnson v. LucasENR 1 El. & Bl. 659.

Jones v. CuthbertsonELR L. R. 8 Q. B. 504.

Bone v. PollardENR 24 Beav. 283.

Hoys v. Kindersly 2 Sm. & Gif. 195.

Dalton v. The Midland Railway CompanyENR 13 C. B. 474.

Meek v. KettlewellENR 1 Hare, 471.

Mulvy v. RobbUNK 4 D. F. & J. 264.

Warriner v. RogersELR L. R. 16 Eq. 340.

Philliskirk v. Pluckwell 2 M. & Sel. 393.

Gaters v. MaddelyENR 6 M. & W. 423.

Christ's Hospital v. BudginENR 2 Vern. 683.

Nash v. NashUNK 2 Mad. 133.

Dummer v. PitcherENR 5 Sim. 35; 2 M. & K. 262.

Low v. CarterENR 1 Beav. 526.

Vance v. VanceENR 1 Beav. 605.

Gosling v. GoslingENR 3 Drew. 335.

Staoketon v. StapletonENR 14 Sim. 186.

Howard v. OakesENR 3 Exch. 143.

Lucas v. LucasENR 1 Atk. 270.

Vandenberg v. PalmerENR 4 K. & J. 204.

Mews v. MewsENR 15 Beav. 529.

Grant v. GrantENR 34 Beav. 624.

Richards v. RichardsENR 2 B. & Ad. 447.

Wheatly v. ParrENR 1 Keen. 551.

Smith v. WardENR 15 Sim. 56.

Fowkes v. PascoeELR L. R. 10 Ch. App. 243.

Hopkins v. AbbottELR L. R. 19 Eq. 222.

Marshall v. CrutwellELR 8 L. R. 20 Eq. 328.

Dalton v. The Midland Railway CompanyENR 13 C. B. 474.

Hopkins v. Hopkins Week. N. Jan. 25, 1875.

Jones v. LockELR L. R. 1 Ch. App. 25.

Milroy v. Lord 31 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 79.

Moore v. MooreELR L. R. 18 Eq. 474.

Lloyd v. PugheELR L. R. 8 Ch. App. 88.

Gosling v. GoslingENR 3 Drew. 335.

Grant v. GrantENR 34 Beav. 623.

Husband and wife — Deposit receipts in their joint names — Effect of them at law and in equity — Wife's surviving entitled to them.

138 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. 11. Rolls, TALBOT TALBOT v. CODY. Husband and wife-Deposit receipts in their joint names-Effect of them at law and in equity-Wife's surviving entitled to them. A man had for a series of years lodged money in two several banks on deÂÂposit receipts, some of which were in his own name and others in the joint names of himself and his wife, and he frequently changed deposits already made in his own name into their joint names. There was some evidence of statements made by him to his wife, but resting on her testimony, that he had acted thus with the object of enabling the survivor to take the principal. At his death there were in the two banks four deposit receipts in their joint names and one in his own name alone :-Held, that the joint lodgments were advancements for the wife, who survived. Effect of deposit receipts in the joint names of husband and wife at law and in equity considered. BILL for the administration of the assets of Richard Cody. The circumstances which occasioned the suit and the question for the decision of the Court are fully stated in the judgment. The deposit receipts of the National Bank acknowledged the receipt of so much money " from Richard Cody and Elizabeth his wife ;" those of the Hibernian Bank, " from Richard and ElizaÂÂbeth Cody ;" each receipt bearing this endorsement-" This reÂÂceipt must be produced, endorsed, when payment or interest is required. Ten days' notice of withdrawal ' red." The return of deposit receipts of the, iolial Bank, from the 16th of May, 1857, to the 28th of Novtmber, 1872, showed forty-nine entries of deposit receipts, of which nineteen were in the name of Richard Cody alone, and the remainder in the joint names of " Richard Cody and Elizabeth his wife." The return of deposit receipts of the Hibernian Bank, from the 15th of May, 1854, to the 21st of November, 1872, showed twenty-cne entries of deposit reÂÂceipts, of which seventeen were in the name of Richard Cody alone and the remainder in the joint names of "Richard Cody and ElizaÂÂbeth his wife." At the testator's death there were four deposit receipts in the joint names and one in his own name only ; and, in each bank, the last entry was of a deposit receipt in the joint names. Mr. Law, Q. C., and Mr. Cleary, for the Plaintiff. , Mr. S. Walker, Q. C., and Mr. Martin, for the Defendant. For the Plaintiff the following authorities were cited (1) :ÂÂAbbott v. Blofield (2) ; Buckley v. Collier (3) ; King v. Basingham (4); Lloyd v. Pughe (5) ; Fleet v. Perrins (6); Byles on Bills, p. 63; Cahill 311Dowall (7); Tonikins v. Ashby (8) ; Lloyd v. Pughe (9) ; Foley v. Hill (10); .21PLean v. Longlands (11) ; Earl of Stafford v. BuckÂÂley (12) ; Gaskell v. Gaskell (13) ; Walter v. Hodge (14) ; Richards v. Delbridge (15) ; Johnson v. Lucas (16) ; Jones v. Cuthbertson (17) ; Bone v. Pollard (18); Hoys v. Kindersly (19) ; Dalton v. The MidÂÂland Railway Company (20) ; Meek v. Kettlewell (21) ; Mary v. Robb (22) ; Warriner v. Rogers (23) : 1 Wms. Exrs., pp. 104, 739. . For the Defendants :-1 Wms. Exrs., pp. 758, 846, 852, 853 ; Philliskirk v. Pluckwell (24) ; Gaters v. Maddely (25) ; Dalton v. The Midland Railway Company (20) ; Fleet v. Perrins (6) ; Christ's Hospital v. Budgin (26) ; Nash v. Nash (27) ; Dummer r. Pitcher (28); Low v. Carter (29) ; Vance v. Vance (30) ; Gosling v. Gosling (31) ; Stapleton v. Stapleton (32) ; Jones v. Cuthbertson (17); Howard v. Oakes (33) ; Lucas v. Lucas (34) ; Vandenberg v. Palmer (35) ; (1) The principal arguments are (16) 1 El. & Bl. 659. adverted to in the judgment. The (17) L. IL 8 Q. B. 504. case was argued for many days at the (18) 24 Beay. 283. two hearings, and it is impossible (19) 2 Sm. & Gif. 195. without unduly lengthening the re- (20) 13 C. B. 474. port to give more than the eases cited. (21) 1 Hare, 471. (2) Cro. Jac. 644. (22) 4 D. F. & J. 264. (3) 1 Salk. 114. (23) L. IL 16 Eq. 340. (4) 8 Mod. 199. (24) 2 M. & Sel. 393. (5) L. R. 8 Ch. App. 88. (25) 6 M. & W. 423. (6) L. It. 4 Q. B. 500. (26) 2 Vern. 683. (7) 13 Ir. C. L. It. 481. (27) 2 Mad. 133. (8) 6 B. & Cr. 541. (28) 5 Sim. 35 ; 2 M. & K. 262. (9) L. IL 14 Eq. 241. (29) 1 Beay. 426. (10) 2 H. L. C. 28. (30) 1 Beay. 605. (11) 5 Ves. 79. (31) 3 Drew. 335. (12) 2 Ves. Sen. 170. (32) 14 Sim. 186. (13) 2 Y. & J. 502. (33) 3 Exch. 143. (14) 2 Swanst. 92. (34) 1 Atk. 270. (15) L. It. 18 Eq. 11. (35) 4 K. & J. 204. 140 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. Rolls. Mews v. News (1); Grant v. Grant (2) ; _Richards v. _Richards (3); 1874. Wheatly v. Parr (4) ; Smith v. Ward (5); Fowkes v. Pascoe (3); TALBOT Hopkins v. _Abbott (7); Marshall v. Crutwell (8) ; _Dalton v. The v. Com. Midland Railway Company (9) ; Hopkins v. Hopkins (10) ; Jones v. Lock (11) ; Milroy Lord (12).; Moore T. Moore (13); Lloyd v. Pughe (14). 1875. THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS : The bill in this cause wasfiled by James Talbot, the executor of the will of Richard Cody deceased, for the administration of the personal estate of Richard Cody ; and it prays also that it may be decided whether the deposit receipts of the Mrillingar branches of the Hibernian and. National Banks and the money represented thereby form part of the assets of the testator, or are the property of the Defendant Elizabeth Cody, the testator's widow. It appears that the testator had dealings with the Mullingar branches of those two banks, and I observe that he never at any time kept a current account in either of those banks. He appears to have commenced those dealings by deposit receipts in 1854. [His HONOR stated the form of the deposit...