¶1Jacob A. Stein, Washington, D. C., for appellants.
¶2Alfred M. Schwartz, Washington, D. C., for appellee Fainberg.
¶3Joseph A. Rafferty, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for appellee Eastern Savings & Loan Ass’n.
¶4David S. Scrivener, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for appellee Perpetual Building Ass’n.
¶5Before Fahy, McGowan and Tamm, Circuit Judges.
¶7Appellants, as executors of an estate, sought to establish a one-half interest in two savings and loans accounts opened and maintained for several years in the name of decedent and one of his sons1 as joint tenants with right of survivor-ship. No complaint is made here of the latitude afforded appellants by the court, sitting without a jury, to prove that decedent did not intend the survivorship consequences which normally attend upon this kind of ownership. It is said that the court could not properly have found, as it did, that decedent “knew, understood, and acquiesced in the fact that the accounts and stocks were held jointly with right of survivorship.”
¶8It was undisputed that decedent and his son had contributed equally to the joint property. Compare Murray v. Gadsden, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 38, 197 F.2d 194, 33 A.L.R.2d 554 (1952). There was some evidence looking away from a survivorship intention, notably the notes of a lawyer who drew decedent’s will which created a trust to pay $200 per month to his widow. But there was other property capable of supporting this trust, and evidence that decedent fully understood the nature and consequences of joint tenancy. The trial judge’s findings are clear and complete; and we are enjoined by Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., not to overturn them unless they are “clearly erroneous.” We would not be warranted in doing so by the record in this case.
¶9Affirmed.