The appellant argues that Solomon Rogers retained a locus poenitentiae, or a "dominion over the subject of the gift" or an ability to "undo what he has done." In re Bauernschmidt's Estate, 97 Md. 35, 59, 54 A. 637 (1903); Pope v. Safe Dep. Tr. Co., 163 Md. 239, 249, 161 A. 404 (1932). We disagree.
Albrecht v. Slater, 233 S.W. 8; Campbell v. Sech, 155 Mich. 634, 119 N.W. 922; Fouts v. Nance, 55 Okla. 266, 155 P. 610; Thomas v. Riley, 147 Ala. 189, 41 So. 854; Atchley v. Rimmer, 148 Tenn. 303, 255 S.W. 366; Collins v. Mande, 144 Cal. 289, 177 P. 945; Short v. Patton, 79 W. Va. 179, 90 S.E. 598; Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co., 132 Ohio St. 21, 4 N.E.2d 917; In re Brown's Estate, 130 Misc. 865, 226 N.Y.S. 1; Casey v. Topliffe, 80 F.2d 543; Chambers et ux. v. McCrerry, 106 F. 364. (b) The other evidence in the record is insufficient to show one of the necessary requisites of a gift, namely, a delivery of the securities to plaintiff-respondent. Albrecht v. Slater, 233 S.W. 8; Trautz v. Lemp, 329 Mo. 580, 46 S.W.2d 135; Bauernschmidt v. Bauerschmidt, 97 Md. 35, 54 A. 637; Dingley v. Robinson, 149 Wn. 301, 270 P. 1018; Mitchell v. Weaver, 242 Mass. 331, 136 N.E. 166; Dodson v. Matthews, 22 Tenn. App. 49, 117 S.W.2d 969; Andreas v. Andreas, 84 N.J. Eq. 368, 94 A. 417; Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co., 132 Ohio St. 21, 4 N.E.2d 917; Casey v. Topliffe, 80 F.2d 543. (c) The evidence is insufficient to show another essential element of a valid gift, to-wit, that plaintiff-respondent accepted the securities. Albrecht v. Slater, 233 S.W. 8; Gottstein v. Hedges, 210 Iowa 272, 228 N.W. 93. (d) Nor can the judgment or decree appealed from be affirmed upon the theory that Otto M. Cartall, during his life, created a trust in the securities under determination here for the use and benefit of plaintiff-respondent because the record and the evidence fails to support such a theory.
Notwithstanding this agreement, there is no doubt that subsequently the husband could create a tenancy in entirety in personalty owned by himself absolutely by a gift to his wife. Brewer v. Bowersox, 92 Md. 567, 40 A. 1060; In re Bauernschmidt's Estate, 97 Md. 35, 54 A. 637. Nor is there any question that a trust of personal property might have been created by parol. Stone v. National City Bank, 126 Md. 231, 94 A. 657. But such loose, vague, and indefinite expressions as are on this record are insufficient to establish either a gift or a trust.
PEARCE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court No. 2, of Baltimore City, ratifying Account A and rejecting Account B, filed by the auditor in the case of Frederick and William Bauernschmidt v. Margaretha Bauernschmidt, Executrix of George Bauernschmidt, deceased, et al., which was before this Court at the January Term, 1903, and which is reported in 97 Md. 35, under the title, " In re Bauernschmidt's Estate." It will facilitate the understanding and disposition of the questions involved here, to state as concisely as may be, the purpose and scope of the bill and the conclusions reached by the Court in the former case.
Nor do we think that he so intended to affect her title, nor in any way to withdraw or modify his primary purpose of giving her the stock; nor is it a fact established in any way that Mrs. Harvey held the stock subject to Harvey's dictation or control. It is true, as is said in Bauernschmidt v. Bauernschmidt, 54 A. 637-643: 'There can be no gift which the law will recognize where there is reserved to the donor, either expressly or as a result of the circumstances and conditions attending the transaction, a power of revocation or a dominion over the subject of the gift.
When Smith granted the remainder interest in the Property to Kafka in 2009, she could not later convey the same interest to Hess in 2011. See In re Bauernschmidt's Estate, 54 A. 637, 645 (Md. 1903) ("A deed may be good in part. When it purports to convey that which the grantor had no authority to convey as well as to transfer that which he could transfer, it will be good as to the latter though inoperative as to the former.").
There cannot be reserved to the donor a locus poenitentiae, which is the power to revoke the gift or the dominion over the subject matter of the gift. Rogers v. Rogers, 271 Md. 603, 319 A.2d 119 (1974); Snyder v. Stouffer, 270 Md. 647, 313 A.2d 497 (1974); In re Bauernschmidt's Estate, 97 Md. 35, 54 A. 637 (1903). Boehm v. Harrington, 54 Md.App. 345, 354, 458 A.2d 885 (1983).
The ‘delivery‘ must be as perfect as the nature of the property and the circumstances and surroundings of the parties will reasonably permit. * * * In Harvey v. Stowe, 219 Fed. 17; 241 U.S. 199, the following was quoted from Bauernschmidt v. Bauernschmidt, 54 Atl. 637, 643: There can be no gift which the law will recognize where there is reserved to the donor, either expressly or as a result of the circumstances and conditions attending the transaction, a power of revocation or a dominion over the subject of the gift.
The court noted that the courts of other jurisdictions have also decided that renting a lockbox in a bank in the names of two or more persons, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship does not on the death of one vest the personal property in the box in the survivor. Accord, Bauerschmidt v. Bauerschmidt, 97 Md. 35, 54 A. 637 (1903). We therefore hold that absent an express agreement that the contents of a safe deposit box shall be joint property, a joint lease in and of itself alone, does not create a joint tenancy in the contents of the box.
"We think it would be a proposition which would somewhat astonish the renters of boxes in safe-deposit companies, if it should be held that, when two combine to rent a safe, the presumption would be that there was a joint ownership in all the property contained therein, even though the names of the renters were disjunctively associated." In the case of Bauernschmidt v. Bauernschmidt, 79 Md. 35, 54 A. 637, 638, 643, 644, a safe deposit box was rented by husband and wife under the following agreement: "We agree to hire and hold safe No. 4,392, or any safe for which it might be exchanged, as joint tenants, the survivor or survivors to have access thereto in case of death of either."