Hudgens v. Tillman
| Decision Date | 21 December 1933 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 727. |
| Citation | 151 So. 863,227 Ala. 672 |
| Parties | HUDGENS et al. v. TILLMAN. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1934.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; Emmet S. Thigpen Judge.
Bill in equity by Mrs. Hulit Tillman against J. J. Hudgens and the Opp Cotton Mills. From a decree for complainant, respondents appeal.
Reversed and rendered.
Simmons & Simmons, of Opp, and E. O. Baldwin, of Andalusia, for appellants.
Powell Albritton & Albritton, of Andalusia, for appellee.
The shares of stock in the mill corporation were duly surrendered to it and reissued in the name of this appellee and would be effective as an irrevocable gift had there been a delivery of the new certificate actual or constructive, and which is the chief question to be determined upon this appeal.
As we understand, section 6995 of the Code of 1923 is not the only method of transfering corporate stock as between the parties nor does a compliance therewith dispense with the necessity for a delivery to become effective as a valid gift. Davis v. Wachter, 224 Ala. 306, 140 So. 361, McGowin v Dickson, 182 Ala. 161, 62 So. 685. Section 6896 of the Code of 1923.
"To make a valid and effective gift inter vivos there must be an intention to transfer title to the property as well as a delivery by the donor and an acceptance by the donee." 12 R. C. L. § 10, p. 932, and many cases cited in Note 18. "The delivery must be actual so far as the subject is capable of delivery, or otherwise it must be such delivery as the nature and situation of the subject sought to be given reasonably admits of and must clearly manifest an intention on the part of the donor to divest himself of title and possession." 12 R. C. L. § 12, p. 935.
While the authorities are not uniform as to what constitutes a gift or delivery of corporate stock, we think that the mere execution of a transfer of the stock on the books of the corporation is ineffectual to perfect the gift inter partes where the donor retains the certificate unless he constitutes himself the trustee for the donee. Getchell v. Biddeford Savings Bank, 94 Me. 452, 47 A. 895, 80 Am. St. Rep. 408; Walker v. Walker, 66 N.H. 390, 31 A. 14, 27 L. R. A. 799, 49 Am. St. Rep. 616; Cannon v. Birmingham Trust & Savings Co., 194 Ala. 469, 69 So. 934.
We think the complainant has failed to meet the burden of proof cast upon her by clear and convincing evidence essential to establish a gift of the stock in question. On the other hand, the proof shows that the purpose of the appellant was a mere effort to get the record in such shape as to negative any ownership of the stock as against a threatened claim for alimony by his wife and negatives a surrender or delivery of the stock, actual or constructive, or any intention on his part to give it to the complainant.
In the letter to his son-in-law, Ellis, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buffaloe v. Barnes
...it was held that an alleged gift inter vivos failed on account of absence of sufficient evidence of donative intent. In Hudgens v. Tillman, 227 Ala. 672, 151 So. 863, Hudgens had 60 shares of stock reissued in the name of his daughter and retained possession of the certificate, it was held ......
-
Buffaloe v. Barnes, 450.
...Institute v. Marsh, 5 Cir, 15 F.2d 347; Trenton Savings Fund Society v. Byrnes, 110 N.J.Eq. 617, 160 A. 831; Hudgens v. Tillman, 227 Ala. 672, 151 So. 863; Jones v. Jones, Mo. App, 201 S.W. 557; Frazier v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co, 178 Okl. 512, 63 P.2d 11; Hart v. Hart, 272 Ky. 488, 114 ......
-
Andrews v. Troy Bank and Trust Co.
...(1920); McGowin v. Dickson, 182 Ala. 161, 62 So. 685 (1913); Duke v. Cahawba Navigation Co., 10 Ala. 82 (1846). Cf. Hudgens v. Tillman, 227 Ala. 672, 151 So. 863 (1933). Other courts considering the question have likewise concluded that the UCC speaks only to legal title and neither abrogat......
-
Livingston v. Powell
...224 Ala. 306, 307, 140 So. 361. The alleged donee must carry the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. Hudgens v. Tillman, 227 Ala. 672, 151 So. 863; DeMouy v. Jepson, 255 Ala. 337, 51 So.2d 506; Collins v. Baxter, 231 Ala. 247, 164 So. A gift of securities may be sustained wher......