Hebrew University Ass'n v. Nye

• Decision Date: 12 September 1966
• Docket Number: No. 88456,88456
• Citation: 223 A.2d 397,26 Conn.Supp. 342
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Parties: The HEBREW UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATION v. George O. NYE et al., Executors (ESTATE of Ethel S. YAHUDA).

Page 397

223 A.2d 397

26 Conn.Supp. 342

The HEBREW UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATION v. George O. NYE et al., Executors (ESTATE of Ethel S. YAHUDA).

No. 88456.

Superior Court of Connecticut, New Haven County, at New Haven.

Sept. 12, 1966.

Louis Feinmark, New Haven, for plaintiff.

Resnik & Driscoll, New Haven, for defendants Nye and Resnik, executors of estate of Ethel S. Yahuda.

Herman S. Hodes, New Haven, for defendants Rivlin and Yahuda, special trustees under will of Ethel S. Yahuda.

PARSKEY, Judge.

Most of the facts in this case are recited in Hebrew University Assn. v. Nye, 148 Conn. 223, 169 A.2d 641. Additionally, it should be noted that at the time of the announcement of the gift of the 'Yahuda Library' the decedent gave to the plaintiff a memorandum containing a list of most of the contents of the library and of all of the important books, documents and incunabula. At some time prior to the summer of 1954 and during the lifetime of Mrs. Yahuda, the Hebrew University began the project of erecting its library. As a part of its effort to finance the construction of the library, the Hebrew University adopted a plan whereby various portions or rooms in the library were assigned certain respective money values, thereby permitting a person desiring to contribute toward the construction of such building, by making a contribution of the amount so assigned for such portion of the building or room, to have it dedicated to himself or some person designated by him. In setting up this plan for the library building, the Hebrew University designated a room in the building as the Yahuda room and indicated upon its plan that such room was not open for subscription or contribution because it had already been assigned for the Yahuda collection. The assigned value of this room was $21,600. By thus removing such room from possible subscription or contribution, the Hebrew University deprived itself of a possible source of substantial revenue.

The plaintiff claims a gift inter vivos based on a constructive or symbolic delivery, and alternatively that because of the decedent's conduct and the plaintiff's action in reliance thereon the defendants are estopped to deny the gift. As to the latter claim, if the plaintiff is in truth claiming an estoppel in pais the short answer to this claim is that equitable estoppel is available only for protection and cannot be used as a weapon of assult. Robinson v. Atterbury, 135 Conn. 517, 520, 66 A.2d 593. In addition to the first theory there are, however, two other theories upon which the plaintiff may prevail. These are constructive trust based on action in reliance on a promise to make a gift and constructive trust arising out of an ineffective conveyance of an intended gift made by one who has died believing that he has made an effective gift. These theories will be discussed seriatim.

I CONSTRUCTIVE DELIVERY

A gift inter vivos is complete when there is an intention to give, accompanied by a delivery of the thing given and an acceptance by the donee. Camp's Appeal, 36 Conn. 88, 92. It is not necessary that there should be a manual delivery of the thing given; nor is there any particular form or mode in which the transfer must be made or by which the intention of the donor must be expressed. Main's Appeal, 73 Conn. 638, 640. While the change of possession may be either actual or constructive, it must be such as is consistent with the nature of the property and the situation of the parties. Leadenham's Estate, 289 Pa. 216, 220, 137 A. 247. For a constructive delivery, the donor must do that which, under the circumstances, will in reason be equivalent to an actual delivery. It must be as nearly perfect and complete as the nature of the property and the circumstances will permit. Hebrew University Assn. v. Nye, 148 Conn. 223, 232, 169 A.2d 641. The gift may be perfected when the donor places in the hands of the donee the means of obtaining possession of the contemplated gift, accompanied with acts and declarations clearly showing an intention to give and to divert himself of all dominion over the property. Candee v. Connecticut Savings Bank, 81 Conn. 372, 375, 171 A. 551, 22 L.R.A., N.S., 568. It is not necessary that the method adopted be the only possible one. It is sufficient if manual delivery is impractical or inconvenient. Gray v. Watters, 243 Iowa 430, 436, 51 N.W.2d 885. Constructive delivery has been found to exist in a variety of factual situations: delivery of keys to safe deposit box; Lawrence v. Hartford National Bank & Trust Co., 24 Conn.Sup. 419, 429, 193 A.2d 506; pointing out hiding places where money is hidden; Waite v. Grubbe, 43 Ore. 406, 410, 73 P. 206; informal memorandum. Matter of Roosevelt, 190 Misc. 341, 345, 73 N.Y.S.2d 821.

Examining the present case in the light of the foregoing, the court finds that the delivery of the memorandum coupled with the decedent's acts and declarations, which clearly show an intention to give and to divest herself of any ownership of the library, was sufficient to complete the gift. If the itemized memorandum which the decedent transmitted had been incorporated in a formal document, no one would question the validity of the gift. But formalism is not an end in itself. 'Whatever the value of the notion of forms, the only use of the forms is to present their contents.' Holmes in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes-His Book Notices and Uncollected Letters and Papers, p. 167 (Shriver Ed.). This is not to suggest that forms and formalities do not serve a useful and sometimes an essential purpose. But where the purpose of formalities is being served, an excessive regard for formalism should not be allowed to defeat the ends of justice. The circumstances under which this gift was made-a public announcement at a luncheon attended by a head of state, accompanied by a document which identified in itemized form what was being given-are a sufficient substitute for a formal instrument purporting to pass title.

II CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST-ACTION IN RELIANCE

If it be assumed that there was an insufficient constructive delivery to consummate the gift, the question arises whether the facts justify the imposition of a constructive trust. It is undisputed that the decedent intended to give the Yahuda Library to the Hebrew University. Her purpose in so doing was to establish a 'centre for Biblical and Semitic research and a meeting place for scholars' as a memorial to her illustrious husband, Professor Abraham Shalom Yahuda. She had reason to expect that the plaintiff would act in reliance on the eventual delivery of the library. In fact it did so act. It removed from the fund-raising market a room which was set aside to house the Yahuda collection. 'A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forebearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement...