ordinary coincidence. A typist at the Post Office Savings Bank who was employed in typing some of the documents in the case was a greatniece of the depositor and so informed the Savings Bank. The Treasury Solicitor thereupon dropped out of the case and Mrs. Carter, a sister of the depositor, was given notice of the hearing at Shrewsbury as representing herself and the other next-of-kin.

The claimant James Powell had based his case on an application by the depositor for a transfer of the deposits which had not been carried into effect before her death, but the Chief Registrar was satisfied at the hearing that there had been a good donatio mortis causa of the deposits to Mr. Powell subject to a trust to erect a tombstone on the depositor's grave. It therefore became unnecessary for him to deal with the question whether the application to transfer ceased to have effect on the death of the depositor so that the Postmaster-General could no longer exercise his discretion under Regulation 55 of the Post Office Savings Bank Regulations, 1921.

He therefore awarded payment of the Treasury fees, of his expenses and of an agreed sum for the solicitor and client costs of Mrs. Carter out of the deposits, and of the balance to James Powell, on trust to erect a tombstone at the depositor's grave and to retain the balance for his own benefit.

Gift.

Solicitors for James Powell: J. C. H. Bowdler, Shrewsbury.
Solicitors for Mrs. Carter: Corser & Son, Shrewsbury.

Claim by executors of donor to set aside gift of deposits as having been conditional only.

Ada Lawrence. London Savings Bank. 11. 2s. 6d. S.I.D. 971. 16s. 3d.

Hearing, 17th November; Award, 24th November.

་

The Chief Registrar's written judgment was as follows:James Pusser and Florence Edith Pusser, executors of the will of Elizabeth Sarah Miller, which was proved on November 11th, 1926, claim that the deposits form part of the estate of the deceased. The testatrix died on 11th November 1926, and the deposits were returned as part of the estate in the Inland Revenue affidavit. Under the will, the depositor, who was a niece of the testatrix, took an equal share of her estate along with several other nephews and nieces.

The evidence of Mr. Pusser was that, in or about 1920, the testatrix, whose affairs he managed, told him that she was disturbed in mind because she could not get her deposit books from the depositor, Mrs. Lawrence, and he went to the Bank to enquire into the matter, when he found, as he expected, that the account had been transferred by the testatrix into the name of Mrs. Lawrence on September 27th, 1915. He then got the books from Mrs. Lawrence, telling her that she knew that Mrs. Miller's intention was merely to give her authority to draw money on her, Mrs. Miller's, behalf. In fact, every time Mrs. Lawrence drew money for Mrs. Miller, the latter gave her a receipt, showing in many cases the amount which was left in the account. His case was that there was no gift of the deposits to Mrs. Lawrence for her own benefit but that they were put into her name merely for convenience of drawing and formed part of Mrs. Miller's estate.

B 2

66

Mr. Digby, solicitor for the executors, deposed that Mrs. Lawrence called on him on January 3rd, 1926, and his note of the interview was: Attending Mrs. Lawrence with Mrs. Hebard. She knew she had authority from the deceased to deal with her account on her behalf and she held Mrs. Miller's receipts. She said she made no claim to the balance at the bank and that it belonged to the deceased's estate." Mr. Sharp, who happened to be in the room at the time, deposed that he heard Mrs. Lawrence say that she made no claim.

Mrs. Lawrence's evidence was that she told Mr. Digby that she claimed the deposits unless the Bank or Mr. Pusser had anything against her, meaning, I suppose, that she regarded the deposits as hers, unless any person with authority to do so could prove the contrary. She asked Mr. Pusser if he had any reason why she should not claim, and he said: "No, but you have the rest of the family to fight." She did not hand the books to Mr. Pusser in 1920, but in 1924, when Mrs. Miller went into a nursing home, and she did so because Miss Pusser asked for them as Mrs. Miller was going away. She took receipts from Mrs. Miller so that she could not say she had not had the money, as she was tiresome at times. According to Mrs. Lawrence, the story started much further back than 1910, when the present accounts were opened. She had looked after Mrs. Miller and her husband, while the latter was still alive, going two or three times a week to see them. The account was opened by Mrs. Miller in her maiden name of Hebard, and then changed into her married name. Mrs. Miller said she would help her later by putting the deposits in their joint names and when anything happened to her, the money would be Mrs. Lawrence's for her kindness. This was done about 20 years ago. In 1910 part of the deposits was put into a special investment account, to earn more interest, and Mrs. Miller gave her the books and said: "Now you will be all right. Mr. Pusser has altered it so as to make more interest." Mrs. Lawrence noticed that the new accounts were in Mrs. Miller's sole name, though how this happened without Mrs. Lawrence's consent I do not understand. She asked Mrs. Miller why her name had been left out, and Mrs. Miller said that to show it was Mrs. Lawrence's money it should go into her sole name, so that Mr. Pusser should not interfere again, but she must let her have some money when she wanted it.

The Bank made a search at my request and discovered that the account was in fact opened by Mrs. Miller in her maiden name of Elizabeth Hebard. She added Mrs. Lawrence's name to the account on August 15th, 1906, and on May 21st, 1910, the account was closed and two new accounts were opened on the same day in the name of Elizabeth S. Miller.

On this evidence I think the executors have failed to make out their case. Indeed, the only evidence against Mrs. Lawrence is her alleged admission on January 3rd, 1926, and I do not think this can prevail against the whole course of dealing between Mrs. Miller and Mrs. Lawrence.

Obviously Mrs. Miller intended to benefit Mrs. Lawrence in 1906 by putting the account in their joint names, and, but for the unexplained transaction in 1910, the account would have been in their joint names now. I believe Mrs. Lawrence when she says that the transfer from Mrs. Miller's name to hers in 1915 was intended to restore Mrs. Lawrence's interest in the deposits. The fact that Mrs. Miller gave receipts for what money was drawn for her seems to me to indicate that she did not regard

the deposits as her own money. If she had, she would not have given receipts. Neither does the fact that Mrs. Lawrence never drew on the account for her own purposes, though she said she sometimes drew on the first account, show that she did not regard the deposits as hers. She merely did not know how much Mrs. Miller would be likely to want, and if Mrs. Miller had wanted it all, she could have had it. Such part of the deposits as she did not want, I think she intended to belong to Mrs. Lawrence.

I award therefore that the deposits, subject to the deduction of the Treasury fee, are the property of the depositor, Mrs. Lawrence. Solicitor for the executors: S. W. Digby.

Solicitors for Mrs. Lawrence: Lewis Barnes, Baker & Co.

Joint Account.

Claim by executor of deceased joint depositor.

Esther Andrews and George Andrews. Post Office Savings Bank. 1017. 18s. 6d.

Hearing and Award, 14th July.

The deposits were claimed by Frederick George Burrell, executor of the will of the depositor Esther Andrews, who died on April 3rd, 1927, on the ground, apparently, that the deposits all came from her.

The Chief Registrar pointed out that this was quite immaterial, and that, apart from the provisions of Regulation 33 (1) of the Post Office Savings Bank Regulations, 1921, it was clear law that the property in a joint holding of personalty passed to the survivor (see Williams on Executors, ed. 11, p. 495, Crossfield v. Such, 8 Exch. 825).

Award for payment of the Treasury fee out of the deposits and that the balance is the property of the depositor George Andrews.

Solicitors for the executor: Leonard Gray & Co., Chelmsford. Counsel for George Andrews: H. Whitmer, instructed by Ranger, Burton & Frost.

Nomination.

(a) Nomination-Trustee Savings Bank-War Stock-Nomination of deposits includes War Stock on the Stock Register of the Savings Bank.

William Armstead. Blackburn Savings Bank. 691. 12s. 8d. and 521. 12s. 7d. 5 per cent. War Stock 1929-1947. Hearing, 21st December, 1926; Award, 25th January, 1927. The written judgment of the Chief Registrar was as follows:

The depositor died intestate on September 12th, 1926, leaving a son, the applicant William Armstead, and two other sons and one daughter by his first wife as his next of kin him surviving. He also left a second wife, who separated from him some fifteen years ago and whose present whereabouts is unknown.

He made a nomination on November 2nd, 1925, whereby he appointed James Boyd Walsh as the person to whom the trustees of the Bank should pay at his decease" the full amount of any deposits and interest." He possessed at the time of his death, in addition to certain deposits, 521. 12s. 7d. 5 per cent. War Stock, 1929-1947, standing to his credit

x 29871

B 3

the Stock Register of the Savings Bank. This stock was taken in exchange for 501. 4 per cent. War Stock, 1925-1945, which was cancelled on July 2nd, 1917.

The next of kin claim that the nomination applies to the deposits only and not to the Stock.

The Savings Bank Act, 1880, Section 3, provided for the investment in Government stock of any part of a depositor's deposits at his request. By Section 3 (11) :

Subject to the regulations made under this Act all enactments for the time being in force relating to savings banks, and all regulations made in pursuance of those enactments, shall, so far as is consistent with the tenour thereof, be construed in like manner as if the stock standing to the credit of any account were a deposit." Section 5 of that Act defined “ Government Stock.”

66

The Savings Bank Act, 1887, section 5, amended these provisions, but this amendment is for the present purpose immaterial.

The Savings Bank Act, 1893, Section 2 (1), limited the amount of Government Stock which might be held by a depositor, but this limitation was removed by the Savings Bank Act, 1920. The same Act, Section 5 (2), Schedule I, re-defined the meaning of "Government Stock."

The Trustee Savings Banks Regulations, 1900, Regulation 14 (2), which is still in force, provides :

"Except where otherwise stated, a nomination shall (subject to the provisions of these Regulations) be deemed to extend to all sums to which a depositor is entitled at the time of his decease in respect of Government Stock or a Savings Bank Annuity, but a depositor may in a nomination expressly exclude any of such sums from the operation of such nomination.'

"Government Stock" is defined by Regulation 2 as: "any Government Stock purchased under the provisions of the Savings Banks Act, 1880, and any Acts amending or extending the same and the regulations made in pursuance of such Acts."

The War Loan Act, 1914, provided for the issuing of war stock for the service of the year ending March 31st, 1915, and by Section 14 (3) of the Finance Act, 1914 (Session 2) "The definition of Government Stock in subsection (2) of section five of the Savings Bank Act, 1893, shall be read as if Stock issued under the War Loan Act, 1914, were included in the First Schedule to the said Savings Bank Act, 1893."

The War Loan Act, 1915, provided for the issuing of war stock for the service of the year ending March 31st, 1916, and in addition for further sums, and, by Section 1 (2), subsection 14 (3) of the Finance Act, 1914, (Session 2), is to apply to any sums or loans raised on stock issued under the War Loan Act, 1914.

Similar provisions, with the substitution of subsequent years, are contained in the War Loan Act, 1916, Section 1 (2), the War Loan Act, 1917, Section 1 (2), the War Loan Act, 1918, Section 1 (2), and the War Loan Act, 1919, Section 1 (4), and there is a cognate provision in the Finance Act, 1926, Section 46 (4).

The combined result of all these provisions is that every species of war stock and bonds is brought within the definition of "Government Stock" in Regulation 2 of the Trustee Savings Banks Regulations, 1900,

and consequently within the operation of Regulation 14 (2). The nomination in the present case does not expressly exclude the depositor's war stock, and the nomination, in the absence of such express exclusion, must be taken to extend to the war stock as well as to the deposits.

The operation of the nomination, however, is limited by Regulation 17, whereby, if the sums due to the depositor exceed 100l., subject to the provisions of the Regulations as to duty, the Trustees are to pay to the nominee a sum not exceeding in the aggregate, 1001.

The proper award, therefore, in this case is that the Bank shall realise the war stock standing to the credit of the depositor, and out of the deposits and the proceeds of the war stock, shall pay 100l. to the nominee and the balance to the next of kin of the depositor according to the Administration of Estates Act, 1925, subject, if the total property of the depositor exceeds 100l. after deduction of debts and funeral expenses, to the provisions of Regulation 26 of the Trustee Savings Banks Regulations, 1900.

I should add that the nominated sum not exceeding 1007., in my opinion, should be regarded as a specific legacy, and that the debts and funeral expenses must be paid out of the residue. If the residue is not sufficient to meet them, any balance must be taken out of the nominated

sum.

I should also add, to prevent any misapprehension, that this decision applies to trustee savings banks only. The position of the Post Office Savings Bank in this matter is entirely different.

Solicitors for the next of kin : Harry Backhouse & Son, Blackburn.

(b) Nomination-Alleged revocation by withdrawal of deposits. Elizabeth Hall, deceased. Manchester and Salford Savings Bank. 11. 11s. 11d.

Hearing, 17th March; Award, 7th May.

The depositor died 26th December, 1925, having executed a nomination on 4th December, 1908, in favour of her son, Harry Hall, who claimed the deposits.

Mary Dickinson, a daughter of the depositor, who held the deposit book and an unproved will of the depositor in her favour, also claimed the moneys in the account. She contended that when her mother withdrew the balance of 371. 18. 2d. on 16th February, 1921, and redeposited 101. on the same day, the nomination was rendered void, and that she had supported her mother for 15 years whilst her brother had contributed nothing. She also claimed that her brother had borrowed 301. from the depositor in April, 1909, which should be accounted a debt to the estate. Harry Hall deposed that the 301. was a wedding present from his mother.

Funeral expenses of the depositor had been paid out of moneys belonging to the husband of Mary Dickinson, but it was contended by Harry Hall that his sister and her husband had lived on the profits of the provision business left by the depositor's husband.

The Chief Registrar, as in the case of Dunn (Chief Registrar's Report, 1925, Part 1, page 13), held that the account referred to in the nomination was the same account as that in force at the date of the death—a stronger case than that just referred to-and that the withdrawal of the sum

B 4