DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Kanagaroo Kort
HTML https://kangarookort.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Property
*****************************************************
#Post#: 24--------------------------------------------------
Newman v. Bost
By: SunsetSailor Date: January 27, 2011, 10:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
CASE SHOWS: Shows the difference b/w intent and delivery &
difference b/w causa mortis and intervienus gifts
FACTS: Plaintiff alleges that the intestate of the defendant,
on his death bed, gave her all the furniture and other property
in his home as a gift causa mortis. There was a policy of life
insurance worth $3,000 and other valuable papers that were kept
in the bureau drawer in the intestate’s bedroom were also
claimed. The defendant collected the policy of life insurance
and sold the household and kitchen furniture, so the suit is
against the defendant as administrator to recover the value of
the property. The intestate called the plaintiff into his
bedroom on April 12, 1896, and handed her a bunch of keys and
told her to keep them and that he wanted her to have them and
everything in the house. He pointed to the bureau, the clock
and other articles of furniture in the house and asked that his
chamber door be opened and pointed in the direction of the hall
and other rooms and repeated that everything in the house was
hers. When the intestate died, the plaintiff informed her
attorney of the donation to her and she kept the keys and
forbade the defendant from interfering with it in any way, both
before and after he qualified as administrator. The plaintiff
demands $3,000 for the life insurance policy, $300 for the value
of the piano, $200.94 for the value of the household property,
and $45 for the value of the property in the plaintiff’s
bedroom.
PROCEDURAL FACTS:
* Trial Court: Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant
appealed
* Supreme Court: New trial
ISSUE: Did the plaintiff acquire the rightful title to all the
furniture and the life insurance policy?
RULE:
* To constitute a donation causa mortis 2 things are
necessary:
1. An intention to make the gift
2. A delivery of the thing given
* W/out both, there can be no gift causa mortis
* The intention to make the gift does not have to be
announced by the donor in express terms. It may be inferred
from the facts attending delivery (what the donor said and did)
* To constitute delivery:
1. Symbolical deliverysome other article
delivered in the name and stead of the thing intended to be
given is sufficient.
2. Constructing deliverythe delivery of a key
to a locked house, trunk or other receptacle is sufficient
ANALYSIS:
- There was no actual manual delivery of the life
insurance policy by the intestate to the plaintiff. It was not
taken from the bureau and handed to the plaintiff as it could
have been. Constructive delivery is substantial for articles
that are not capable of being manually handed over. Articles
that are capable of being handed over manually, must be manually
delivered. The bureau and any other article of furniture,
locked and unlocked by any of the keys given to the plaintiff,
did constitute constructive delivery of these objects. The
other articles of furniture in the house, except for her bedroom
furniture, did not pass on to the plaintiff. Unless there is
something more shown to constitute delivery of the piano to the
plaintiff, other than it was called ‘Miss Julia’s piano,’ it
delivery cannot be certain.
CONSLUSION: Symbolic delivery is nonexistent in the case
of gifts either inter vivos or causa mortis. A new trial is
necessary.
*****************************************************