Hunt v. Hunt

• Decision Date: 13 January 1876
• Citation: 119 Mass. 474
• Parties: Aaron Hunt, executor, v. Thomas Hunt
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

119 Mass. 474

Aaron Hunt, executor, v. Thomas Hunt

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

January 13, 1876

Middlesex. Contract by the executor of Cyrus Hunt for money had and received by the defendant to the use of the testator with a count alleging the delivery of a bond of the value of $ 1000, by the testator to the defendant; a promise on his part to return it; and a demand and refusal. Answer, a general denial.

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., without a jury, the plaintiff offered in evidence the following receipt signed by the defendant: "Brighton, Nov. 15, 1871. Recd of Cyrus Hunt, bond of one thousand dollars, No. 23, 658 which I am to return to him, or its equivalent in currency."

The defendant contended that the bond in question had been given to him by the plaintiff's testator. It appeared in evidence that he was the half-brother of Cyrus Hunt, who was in the habit of assisting him pecuniarily from time to time that the bond in question had been lent to him about the time the receipt in evidence was given. The defendant testified that, at the time of the loan, the plaintiff's testator signified his intention of giving the bond in question to him; that afterwards he did give the bond in question to him; that at the time of the gift the bond was already in the possession of the defendant; that the testator was sick in bed at the time and unable to get the receipt in question, but said that all papers in his possession were to be given up to him if he would come up some day when the testator was able to get them. A minister of the testator's parish also testified that the testator had made inquiries of him concerning the children of the defendant, who had attended school under the witness, and said he intended to do something for the defendant and his children; that the testator afterwards told him that he had provided for the defendant and his children by giving a bond to the defendant. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that the testator did not intend a gift.

Upon this evidence, the judge, having found that the bond was originally a loan, ruled that as matter of law there had been no delivery of the bond by the plaintiff's testator to the defendant, sufficient to constitute a valid gift, even if such were proved to have been intended; and found for the plaintiff accordingly; and the defendant alleged exceptions to this ruling.

Exceptions sustained.

C. T....