Johnson v. Grice
| Decision Date | 07 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | 25264 |
| Citation | 140 Miss. 562,106 So. 271 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. GRICE. [*] |
1 GIFTS. Delivery and retention of possession necessary for gift causa mortis.
For gift causa mortis, which is always conditioned on death possession of property must be delivered to donee and retained during life of donor.
2 GIFTS. Delivery and statement held to constitute completed gift causa mortis.
Delivery of note by payee, in contemplation of his death, to J., indorsed, "In case of my death before this note matures, I hereby transfer... payment of same to J.," statement by payee to maker that he wanted payment made to J., and retention of note by J. till after death of payee before its maturity, held to constitute completed gift causa mortis.
3. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. Gifts causa mortis subject to right of creditors.
Gift causa mortis is subject to right of donor's creditors in case estate is otherwise insufficient to satisfy debts.
HON. V. J. STRICKER, Chancellor.
APPEAL from chancery court of Lincoln county, HON. V. J. STRICKER, Chancellor.
Petition by Barney Grice, administrator of N. C. Collins, deceased, against Willie Johnson. From adverse decree, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Decree reversed, and cause remanded.
Mayson & Kelly, for appellant.
The notes were given to the appellant and she acquired a perfect title to the proceeds. The prevailing doctrines relative to gifts are undoubtedly of civil law origin. Treating the gift here as one cause mortis it is perfect and unimpeachable, and complied with all the requisites of a gift of that kind in accordance with the provisions of the civil law. Vide Coopers Inst. of Justinian, Lib. II, Tit. VII, number 1.
If the gift were unconditional, as suggested by the chancellor, it would destroy its effect as a gift causa mortis. The right of revocation is an essential element in a gift cause mortis under both the civil and the common law. The gift is subject to the implied condition that if the donor recovers, or the donee die first, the gift shall be void and possession of the property, of course, must be delivered to the donee. Johnson v. Colley, 99 Am. St. Rep. 884, 101 Va. 414, 44 S.E. 721.
The deceased had directed the writer of the letter to send the notes to appellant so that if anything happened he wanted her to be his successor. Not only that, just a few days before he died he sent for the maker of the notes and the ownership of the notes was discussed, and, according to the maker's testimony he said "I want you to pay it to Willie." Delivery of the subject-matter of the gift by the donor to the donee, under the conditions above enumerated, perfects the gift in the donee. Pace v. Pace, 107 Miss. 292, 65 So. 273.
This case is also authority for the position that we have taken above that it makes no difference whether it be called a gift inter vivos, or causa mortis. See also Parker v. Mott, 181 N.C. 435, 107 S.E. 500, 25 A. L. R. 637.
Our own court has recently held that it is not necessary that the donee have actual possession of the notes, but that there must be a surrender of control over the same. In this case the court was speaking of gifts inter vivos. See Harmon v. McFarlane, 99 So. 566.
The learned chancellor in his opinion also says: "At his death only and before maturity could she claim as donee." The learned chancellor is mistaken in that position, and is supported neither by reason nor authority. The time of the delivery would control. The title of the donee becomes by relation complete and absolute from the time of delivery; no consent or other act on the part of the personal representative is necessary to perfect the title of the donee; it is a claim against the personal representative; a legacy is a claim from and through him. 28 C. J. 685, sec. 94. The same doctrine is announced in Green v. Tulane, 52 N.J.Eq. 169, 28 A. 9.
We have already stated that the title of the appellant would be good whether the gift was inter vivos or causa mortis. It seems that the only material distinction between the two is that in case of gift causa mortis the survival of the donor may defeat the gift. Sharp v. Sharp, 105 S.C. 459, 90 S.E. 34, 3 A. L. R. 891.
It is believed that the transactions between the deceased and Willie Johnson have all the elements of a gift without reference to the name. It is, therefore, respectfully urged that the decree of the court below ought to be reversed and a decree rendered in this court for appellant.
J. F. Noble, for appellee.
The instant case is one of gift causa mortis. All the facts and testimony demonstrate this to be true. Appellant cites 28 C. J. 685, sec. 94. Appellee agrees that the law as announced therein is correct; but this law avails appellant nothing whatsoever. These are the reasons: In a gift causa mortis it is essential that the gift be made under apprehension of death from some existing disease, or other impending peril. Donor need not be in extremis, but vague or general apprehension of death is not sufficient. See 28 C. J. 688, sec. 100. The testimony fails to show that Collins expected death as meant in the above-mentioned authority. Vague apprehension of death is not all sufficient. The apprehension of death must be immediate.
A gift causa mortis cannot avail against creditors of the donor, where there is a deficiency of assets. See 12 R. C. L. 968, sec. 40; 28 C. J. 699, sec. 125. These authorities absolutely hold that such a gift cannot avail as against creditors. This is not only good law and good logic but it is fair and right.
There are creditors in this estate. By such a gift Collins could not shut out his creditors. The chancellor was correct in his decision and ought to be sustained by this court.
Mayson & Kelly, in reply for appellant.
Counsel says that gift causa mortis, could not avail against creditors but in this he is mistaken. Pace v. Pace, 107 Miss. 292, 65 So. 273. But even if it were true that the law of priorities would prevail, still there are no creditors in this case who could claim as against the appellant.
The gift of the notes cannot be questioned by a creditor because the proceeds are exempt property. At the time of the execution of the notes the donor was a man more than eighty years of age, this little property, besides some that he afterwards gave a deed of trust to one of his creditors, was exempt by law from seizure under legal process. Laws 1914, chapter 225, Hemingway's Code, section 1821.
Exempt property, real or personal, disposed of by the owner shall not become liable to the debts of the owner. Code 1906, section 2158, Hemingway's Code, section 1833.
The petition filed in the chancery court of Lincoln county by Barney Grice, administrator of the estate of N. C. Collins, deceased, showed that the decedent at the time of his death was the owner of two promissory notes executed by Jim Gray in favor of the decedent for one hundred twelve dollars and fifty cents, one of which became due and payable March 1, 1925, and the other March 1, 1926. The petition further showed that said notes were executed as a balance of the purchase money of certain lands sold to the said Gray by the said decedent. The petition further showed that claims had been probated and filed against the estate, and at the time of filing the petition it did not appear whether the estate would be solvent or not. The petition further set up that the defendant, Willie Johnson, claimed said notes by virtue of some assignment or other transfer, the nature of which was unknown. The petition further showed that the note due March 1, 1925, had been paid to the administrator, and that he was entitled to the possession of the note due on March 1, 1926.
The answer set up briefly that immediately upon the execution and delivery of said notes by Gray to Collins the decedent, Collins, got Gray's wife to write defendant a letter and inclose said notes so that she (Willie Johnson) would be the sole owner thereof. She further averred that the notes were not delivered to her solely as a gift, but that she had been reared by the said Collins and lived with him and by her labor enabled him to acquire the lands which had been sold to Gray. She claimed the notes as her individual and exclusive property and asked that the administrator be directed to pay the proceeds of the note collected to her. On the back of these notes was the following indorsement:
"Wesson, Miss., March 1, 1924. In case of my death before this note matures, I hereby transfer and assign payment of same to Willie Johnson.
[Signed]
Nelson [his mark X] Collins.
Witness:
[Signed]
G. L. Hays."
The letter in which the notes were inclosed to Willie Johnson reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howell v. Ott
...the donee of a deed of gift is not sufficient alone to convey the title. Gidden v. Gidden, 176 Miss. 98, 167 So. 785; Johnson v. Grice, 140 Miss. 562, 106 So. 271; Pace v. Pace, 107 Miss. 292, 65 So. 273; Meyer v. Meyer, 106 Miss. 638, 64 So. 420; Fairley v. Fairley, 34 Miss. 18; McWillie v......
- Vicksburg Gas Co. v. Ferguson
-
Yates' Estate v. Alabama-Mississippi Conference Ass'n of Seventh-Day Adventists, Inc
...inter vivos, is that the property must be delivered in such manner that the donor retains no control or dominion over it. Johnson v. Grice, 140 Miss. 562, 106 So. 271; Pace v. Pace, 107 Miss. 292, 65 So. 273; v. Meyer, 106 Miss. 638, 64 So. 420; McWillie v. Van Vacter, 35 Miss. 428, 72 Am. ......
-
Greer v. Hampton
...mortis, as well as inter vivos, is that the property must be delivered; the donor must surrender all dominion over it. Johnson v. Grice, 140 Miss. 562, 106 So. 271; Pace v. Pace, 107 Miss. 292, 65 So. 273; Meyer v. Meyer, 106 Miss. 638, 64 So. 420; Fairley v. Fairley, 34 Miss. 18; McWillie ......