Chambers v. McCreery
| Decision Date | 14 December 1899 |
| Citation | 98 F. 783 |
| Parties | CHAMBERS et ux. v. McCREERY. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Brown Jackson & Knight, for complainants.
Watts & Ashby and John W. McCreery, for defendant.
This case was heard some time since, and submitted to the court for its action; and while the same was under consideration one of the parties died, making it necessary to revive the case. At this term of the court the case was revived, and it now comes on to be heard upon the papers for a final decree.
The only question that arises in this case is whether certain bonds that belonged to Edwin Prince in his lifetime were disposed of by him by gift to his wife. It is claimed by the plaintiffs in this action, T. W. Chambers and Lockey T Chambers, his wife (who was the wife of Edwin Prince, and after his death intermarried with T. W. Chambers), that during the lifetime of Edwin Prince he gave to her certain bonds, set out in the bill, in a safe deposit at Cincinnati. The executors and heirs of Edwin Prince contest this claim and deny that the bonds were ever disposed of by Edwin Prince, in any manner or form, in his lifetime, and claim that they belong to the estate of Edwin Prince, to be disposed of by his executor. This is a question of a gift inter vivos. A gift of this character has been defined to be 'an immediate, voluntary, and gratuitous transfer of personal property by one to another. ' To make this gift valid, it is essential that the transfer of the property be duly executed, for the reason that, there being no consideration passing between the donor and donee, no action will lie to enforce it. A gift of this character must go into immediate and absolute effect. To make it complete, there must be an actual delivery of the subject-matter of the gift so far as the same is capable of delivery; and, in the absence of a delivery of that character, the title to the property does not pass from the donor to the donee. Chancellor Kent says in his work (2 Comm. p. 438) that the ' An intention to give it is not a gift, and, so long as a gift is incomplete, a court of equity will not enforce and give effect to it. This position of Chancellor Kent is sustained by a long list of authorities in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brine v. Parker
...E. 916,132 Am. St. Rep. 503;Mitchell v. Weaver, 242 Mass. 331, 136 N. E. 166;Perry v. Leveroni, 252 Mass. 390, 147 N. E. 826;Chambers v. McCreery (C. C.) 98 F. 783. They do not as matter of law effect the validity of the finding. The conclusion that there was no gift of these securities and......
-
State v. Pelletier (In re Brown's Estate)
...owners by the other as would meet the requirements of a completed gift of the whole interest in the chattel as in the case of Chambers v. McCreery, C.C., 98 F. 783, relied upon by appellants and as contemplated by the authorities relied on in the majority opinion, all of which have to do wi......
-
Chambers v. McCreery
...court at the time of the submission. The court below entered a decree refusing the relief asked for an dismissing the complainants' bill. 98 F. 783. From that decree appeal now before us was asked for and granted. The assignment of errors, while four in number, in substance are that the cou......
-
In re Brown's Estate
... ... would meet the requirements of a completed gift of the whole ... interest in the chattel as in the case of Chambers v ... McCreery, C.C., 98 F. 783, relied upon by appellants and ... as contemplated by the authorities relied on in [122 Mont ... 463] the ... ...