Opinion
April 10, 1929.
July 2, 1929.
Husband and wife — Tenancy by entireties — Savings account — Pledge of by husband — Effect upon rights of wife — Interpleader.
In an interpleader to determine the right to a savings deposit it appeared that defendant and her husband opened a savings account in a certain bank. Under the rules of the bank no money could be withdrawn without production of the deposit book. Subsequent to the opening of the account defendant's husband borrowed twelve hundred dollars from plaintiff Trust Company. He gave his judgment note therefor, pledged the savings account, and delivered the deposit book, together with an order authorizing the withdrawal of twelve hundred dollars from the account. An officer of the plaintiff Trust Company notified the bank of his intention to accept the savings account as collateral security, and was advised that the order would be paid at the expiration of thirty days. Defendant's husband died before the due date of the note, and defendant claimed the total fund in the account. Under such circumstances judgment for the defendant will be sustained.
Whenever an estate real or personal, vests in two persons who are at the time husband and wife, a tenancy by the entireties arises.
Where deposits are made in bank, payable to husband and wife. or either, the account is held by entireties and the legal ownership thereof rests in the survivor. Neither party can sell or assign his or her interest therein, not even the expectancy of survivorship. Any alienation by one, the other not consenting, of any interest whatever in the estate, if allowed, would be an abridgment pro tanto of the rights of the other. Neither can divest himself or herself of any part without in some way infringing upon the rights of the other. Neither party has the right to pledge the account for his or her individual debt.
When the husband assigned his interest in the account to the Trust Company, he did something that he had no authority to do, and his act did not deprive the wife of the rights incident to survivorship as joint tenant.
Appeal No. 177, April T., 1929, by plaintiff from judgment of C.P., Somerset County, September T., 1928, No. 225, in the case of Pennsylvania Trust Company v. Annie Mischik.
Before TREXLER, KELLER, LINN, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM and BALDRIGE, JJ. Affirmed.
Interpleader to determine right to savings deposit. Before BERKEY, P.J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $1,276.80. Subsequently the court entered judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of the defendant in the sum of $1,200. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned, was the entry of judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of the defendant.
Joseph Levy, for appellant.
Leland W. Walker, and with him Ernest F. Walker, for appellee.
Argued April 10, 1929.
A savings account was opened in the Citizens' National Bank of Hooversville "In account with Annie, Andrew Mischik, either." They were husband and wife. Annie Mischik took the bank book and placed it in a drawer in their home. No money could be withdrawn under the rules of the bank as they appear in the book, without the production of the book. On August 5, 1927, Andrew Mischik borrowed $1,200 from the Pennsylvania Trust Company, giving his judgment note of even date, payable September 5, 1927, therein pledging the savings account and delivering the deposit book and an order or receipt signed by him which authorized the withdrawal of $1,200 from the account.
The treasurer of the trust company telephoned the cashier of the Hooversville bank and gave him notice of his intention to accept the savings account, deposit book and order or receipt as collateral security and was advised by the cashier that the order would be paid at the expiration of thirty days, as provided by the rules.
Andrew Mischik died August 17, 1927, before the expiration of the time set in the note and his wife, Annie Mischik, claimed the amount in bank. The money was then paid into court and the Pennsylvania Trust Company and Annie Mischik both claimed the fund. The trial judge, the facts being undisputed, directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and afterwards entered judgment n.o.v., in favor of the defendant, Annie Mischik.
It is very evident that the account was held by Andrew and Annie Mischik by entireties. Whenever an estate real or personal, vests in two persons who are at the time husband and wife, a tenancy by the entireties arises: Brambarry's Estate, 156 Pa. 628. Where deposits are made in bank, payable to husband and wife, or either, the account is held by entireties and the legal ownership thereof rests in the survivor: Kleinke's Est., 210 Pa. 572; Parry's Est., 188 Pa. 33; Sloan's Estate, 254 Pa. 346. This being so, neither party can sell or assign his or her interest therein, not even the expectancy of survivorship: O'Malley v. O'Malley, 272 Pa. 528. Any alienation by one, the other not consenting, of any interest whatever in the estate, if allowed, would be an abridgment pro tanto of the rights of the other. "Neither can divest himself or herself of any part without in some way infringing upon the rights of the other" Biehl v. Martin, 236 Pa. 519; Gasner v. Pierce, 286 Pa. 529. Neither party had the right to go to a third party and pledge the account for his or her individual debt: Roka v. Wilbur Trust Co., 10 Pa. D. C. 94. In the case before us, when the husband assigned his interest in the account to the Pennsylvania Trust Company, he did something that he had no authority to do and his act did not deprive the wife of the rights incident to survivorship as joint tenant. The case seems to be ruled by the authorities above quoted.
The judgment is affirmed.