McDonald v. Larson

• Decision Date: 17 April 1919
• Docket Number: 21,178
• Citation: McDonald v. Larson, 142 Minn. 244, 171 N.W. 811 (Minn. 1919)
• Parties: ANNA McDONALD v. L. E. LARSON; OLE E. AAHL, APPELLANT
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

171 N.W. 811

142 Minn. 244

ANNA McDONALD v. L. E. LARSON;

OLE E. AAHL, APPELLANT

No. 21,178

Supreme Court of Minnesota

April 17, 1919

Action in the district court for Clay county to recover $757.05 which defendant had received as the agent of plaintiff but had not paid after demand therefor. Defendant in his answer alleged that the mother of plaintiff delivered to him certain certificates of deposit for that amount and instructed him upon her death to deliver them to plaintiff, and that defendant held the certificates pursuant to such instructions; that the mother died intestate and Ole E. Aahl the administrator of her estate, claimed the certificates as a part of the assets of the estate and prayed that the administrator be substituted for defendant. The administrator filed his complaint in intervention, alleging that the certificates of deposit were the property of intervener. The case was tried before Roeser, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, intervener appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Gift inter vivos -- delivery.

1. To constitute a valid gift inter vivos, the donor must deliver the property to the donee, or to some one for him, with intent to vest title in the donee and without reserving any right to reclaim the property.

Gift inter vivos -- evidence.

2. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conclusion of the trial court that the decedent made a valid gift, inter vivos, of the funds represented by the certificates of deposit in controversy.

F. H. Peterson, for appellant.

Garfield H. Rustad and C. G. Dosland, for respondent.

OPINION

TAYLOR, C.

Appeal by the intervener from a judgment determining that plaintiff is the owner and entitled to the possession of three certificates of deposit for the aggregate sum of $757.05 in the possession of defendant. The only question presented is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conclusion of the trial court that in her lifetime plaintiff's mother, now deceased, had made a valid gift to plaintiff of the funds represented by these certificates. The intervener is the surviving husband of Anna L. Aahl, deceased, and the administrator of her estate; the plaintiff is their daughter; the defendant is the husband of a sister of the deceased.

Some 15 years before her death Mrs. Aahl gave defendant a small sum of money with instructions to put it in the bank, take care of it, and if she died to give it to Annie, her daughter. Plaintiff, the only daughter, was then a child living with her parents. She is now married and lives in California. Defendant placed the money in the bank and took a certificate of deposit for one year in the name Mrs. Aahl. At the end of the year he had Mrs. Aahl indorse the certificate, and then surrendered it to the bank and took a new certificate of the same form for the amount of the deposit with accumulated interest. He repeated this each year until the year 1916. Mrs. Aahl also gave him two other sums with like instructions, for which he procured two other certificates of the same form as the first, and which were renewed in the same manner whenever they matured. When he took a certificate to Mrs. Aahl to be indorsed for the purpose of having it renewed, she often gave him an additional sum to be added to the deposit and this was included in the renewal certificate. In the latter part of the summer of 1916, defendant, expecting to be absent when the certificates, or two of them, matured, and knowing that interest ceased at maturity, left the certificates with Mrs. Aahl, so that she could secure renewals at the proper time. She secured the renewals and retained possession of the certificates until her death in October, 1916. On the day of her death the intervener, finding these and a fourth certificate in a bureau drawer, gave the four to defendant. Defendant subsequently returned the fourth certificate, but retained the three representing the funds which had previously been intrusted to him as above stated. These are the certificates in controversy. The intervener as administrator claims them as a part of the estate of the deceased. Plaintiff claims them as a gift from her mother.

It is true, as claimed by the intervener, that in order to make a valid gift inter vivos the donor must deliver the property to...