Appeal, No. 116, Oct. T., 1954, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, in Equity, No. 1574, in case of John Gut, sometimes written John Good v. Wallace Good et ux., and The Altoona Trust Company. Decree affirmed.
Robert W. Anthony, for appellants.
John Woodcock, Jr., for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P. J., Hirt, Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside and Ervin, JJ.
On October 3, 1949 a bill in equity was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County by John Gut, sometimes written John Good, alleging that he had turned over to his son, Wallace Good, the sum of $2,500, to be held by the latter for the sole use and benefit of the plaintiff and subject to delivery at such time or times and such amounts as the plaintiff might elect to take; that Wallace Good thereupon deposited the money in the Altoona Trust Company, opening a joint account in his own name and that of his wife, Adela Good, who was also named a defendant; and that plaintiff had demanded the return of the money, which was refused. The prayer of the bill was for an injunction restraining defendants from withdrawing the money and the trust company from honoring any check against the account, and for a judicial declaration of a trust relationship regarding the fund and return of the money to plaintiff.
The answer categorically denied delivery of any money to defendants by the plaintiff, the existence of any agreement thereto, and demand and refusal to return. On the contrary, it averred that the money deposited in the joint account of Wallace and Adela Good was their sole property, and prayed dismissal of the bill.
A question of fact having been raised, the court issued a temporary injunction pending trial by jury on the issue of fact. An amendment to the bill was allowed setting forth that the total sum was given the defendant son on three separate occasions - $500 in the fall of 1946, $500 in the winter of 1946-47, and $1,500 in the latter part of June or early part of July 1948 - in substitution of the original averment that the money was turned over entirely on the last mentioned date.
After trial on February 13, 1951, the jury answered in the affirmative all of the following specific questions: "1. Did John Gut give his son $500.00 in the fall of 1946? 2. Did John Gut give his son another $500.00 a month later? 3. Did John Gut give Wallace Good an additional $1500.00 in June or July, 1948? 4. Was this money to be held by Wallace Good for the use and benefit of John Gut?" The jury also recommended that a guardian be appointed for the plaintiff.
Defendants' motion for a new trial was refused and the case referred back to the equity side of the court, where a decree nisi in the form of a mandatory injunction was entered in accordance with the special verdict. After defendants' exceptions were dismissed, they took this appeal.
All of the alleged payments were in cash. Plaintiff at the time of trial was 76 years of age. He testified that he gave his son Wallace $500 in the first instance after ...