City Nat. Bank v. Morrissey
| Decision Date | 03 June 1922 |
| Citation | 117 A. 493,97 Conn. 480 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CITY NAT. BANK v. MORRISSEY et al. |
Case Reserved from Superior Court, Fairfield County; John W Banks, Judge.
Action by the City National Bank, administrator, against Thomas Morrissey and others. Case submitted for advice on questions of law stated in a stipulation of the parties. Judgment advised for plaintiff.
The material facts admitted by all parties are the following Thomas F. Martin was the owner of two pieces of land, an unsecured note, and certain notes secured by mortgages on real estate. On March 1, 1915, he executed quitclaim deeds of some of these mortgages to Thomas Morrissey, trustee expressing his purpose to assign the mortgages to the grantee, but making no other reference to a trust, and indorsed some of the notes secured by these mortgages to Morrissey, trustee, and some in blank. On the same day Martin executed a quitclaim deed of the two pieces of land to Morrissey, trustee. On March 1, 1915, Martin also signed a letter addressed to Morrissey, trustee, in which he stated that he had that day assigned and transferred to him " various notes and the mortgages securing the same," and directed that after his death Morrissey assign and transfer one-third in value of these notes and mortgages to each of his two daughters and hold the remainder as trustee under conditions specified in his will. He did not mention in this letter the deed of the two pieces of real estate.
On the same day, March 1, 1915, Martin made his will in which he gave one-third of his real and personal property to each of his daughters and the remaining one-third in trust to Morrissey to pay the income to Martin's son during his life and after his death to pay the principal equally to his two daughters.
On November 30, 1915, and subsequently, Martin in the same manner indorsed and assigned certain other notes and mortgages securing them to Morrissey, trustee.
On May 9, 1917, Morrissey, trustee, at Martin's request executed and delivered to Martin quitclaim deeds of the two pieces of real estate and of all the mortgages before assigned to him by Martin, and therein named Martin's three children as grantees.
On November 5, 1920, Martin bought from the defendant Hogan a note secured by mortgage and caused her to indorse it and to execute a quitclaim deed of the mortgage to his three children.
On December 8, 1920, Martin gave his daughter Marguerite Hurley $1,000, for which she made and delivered to him her two notes for $500 payable to herself, her sister, and her brother, and a mortgage on real estate to secure the notes.
Martin placed all of these deeds and notes and the letter addressed to Morrissey, trustee, in the safe of a lawyer whom he sometimes employed, without giving to him or to any one any information or instructions concerning them; and all these papers were found thus in this safe after Martin's death.
Martin died January 21, 1921, leaving only three children, the defendants Mary Edith Wren, Marguerite Hurley, and Albert V. Martin. Thomas Morrissey, named as executor and trustee in Martin's will, declined to act in either capacity, and thereupon the plaintiff was appointed administrator with the will annexed and trustee. The plaintiff was also appointed and qualified as conservator of the defendant Albert V. Martin.
The plaintiff claimed: (a) " That it be adjudged and decreed that the mortgages, notes, and real estate described in the complaint were the property of said Thomas F. Martin at the time of his decease; " (b) that the defendants execute any conveyances necessary to vest the title in the plaintiff administrator; (c) any further relief the plaintiff should be entitled to in equity.
Carl Foster and Frederick E. Morgan, both of Bridgeport, for plaintiff.
Charles Stuart Canfield, of Bridgeport, for conservator of Martin.
Thomas M. Cullinan, John J. Cullinan and Vincent L. Keating, all of Bridgeport, for Morrissey and others.
It is manifest that Thomas F. Martin did not deliver any of the notes or any of the quitclaim deeds of mortgages or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wasniewski v. Quick and Reilly, Inc.
...982. "Delivery of possession is the foundation of a transfer; without delivery there can be no transfer." City National Bank v. Morrissey, 97 Conn. 480, 483, 117 A. 493 (1922). In order to constitute a delivery, not only must the donor part with possession of the property, but he also must ......
-
Casto v. Martin
...785, 6 S.E.2d 254 (1939).13 Rex Smith Propane, Inc. v. Nat'l Bank of Commerce, 372 F.Supp. 499 (N.D.Tex.1974); City Nat'l Bank v. Morrissey, 97 Conn. 480, 117 A. 493 (1922); 11 Am.Jur.2d Bills and Notes § 278, pp. ...
-
Coppola v. Farina
...39 A. 482 (1898); see also Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Slater, 114 Conn. 603, 613, 159 A. 578 (1932); City National Bank v. Morrissey, 97 Conn. 480, 483, 117 A. 493 (1922); Main's Appeal, 73 Conn. 638, 640, 48 A. 965 (1901). "To make a valid gift inter vivos, the donor must part with ......
-
Hamilton v. US, Civ. No. N-90-128 (TFGD).
...that "the delivery of a deed with intent by the grantor to pass title is essential to a valid conveyance." City Nat'l Bank v. Morrissey, 97 Conn. 480, 483, 117 A. 493, 494 (1922). It is not necessary, however, that the instrument be delivered to the grantee in person; delivery to an authori......