McLain v. Gilliam, 3975
| Decision Date | 19 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 3975,3975 |
| Citation | 389 S.W.2d 131 |
| Parties | Ruth A. McLAIN, Appellant, v. Dean GILLIAM, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Herbert C. Martin, Amarillo, for appellant.
Jones & Rittenberry, Amarillo, for appellee.
Ruth A. McLain and Dean Gilliam were engaged to be married. During said engagement, in contemplation of marriage, McLain delivered to Gilliam $4200.00 of her money which Gilliam paid on his debts. Thereafter Gilliam broke the engagement and McLain sued to recover her money. The jury found that said money did not belong to McLain; that McLain delivered the $4200.00 to Gilliam as a gift and that McLain intended to make a gift to Gilliam of the $4200.00 'after their engagement had terminated.' Judgment was rendered that plaintiff take nothing. She has appealed.
Appellant's first point is that the jury having found that she made a gift of the money to Gilliam, and the uncontroverted evidence showing that such funds were delivered by her to Gilliam after they were engaged, in contemplation of marriage, and that Gilliam paid his debts with it and thereafter broke the engagement, that she is entitle to recover her money as a matter of law. We sustain said point.
It was undisputed that during the time that said parties were engaged, in contemplation of marriage, Ruth McLain delivered to Gilliam her $4200.00 and that he paid his debts with it. The applicable rule is stated in 38 C.J.S. Gifts Sec. 61 at page 849 as follows:
'A gift to a person to whom the donor is engaged to be married, made in contemplation of marriage, although absolute in form, is conditional; and on breach of the marriage engagement by the done the property may be recovered by the donor.'
That rule was recognized in the Texas case of Shaw v. Christie, Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 989, 991. In 92 A.L.R. at page 605 the statement is made that 'Upon the theory that gifts made in contemplation of marriage are made upon an implied condition that they are to be returned if the donee breaks the engagement, the following cases support the proposition that where the engagement is broken by the donee recovery of such gifts or their value may be had.' There follows a citation of decisions approving said rule in Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland. Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, England and Canada. In 92 A.L.R. at page 608, Grossman v. Greenstein, 161 Md. 71, 155 A. 190, is cited. It was there held that the father of a girl who deposited money in the joint account of his daughter and her fiance, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ver Brycke v. Ver Brycke
...of engagement was equitable cause of action); Fanning v. Iversen, 535 N.W.2d 770, 773-75 (S.D.1995)(same); cf. McLain v. Gilliam, 389 S.W.2d 131, 132 (Tex.Ct.App. 1965)("the rule applies to real estate as well as personalty ... [and] in a proper case equity will take jurisdiction to enforce......
-
Curtis v. Anderson
...that the ring be returned to the donor if the donee is at fault in terminating the engagement. See McLain v. Gilliam, 389 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. Civ.App.-Eastland 1965, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Shaw v. Christie, 160 S.W.2d 989 (Tex.Civ. App.-Beaumont 1942, no writ).2 The court in McLain expressed the ......
-
Fanning v. Iversen
...Glachman v. Perlen, 159 A.D.2d 553, 552 N.Y.S.2d 418 (1990); Wilson v. Dabo, 10 Ohio App.3d 169, 461 N.E.2d 8 (1983); McLain v. Gilliam, 389 S.W.2d 131 (Tex.Civ.App.1965); Spinnell v. Quigley, 56 Wash.App. 799, 785 P.2d 1149 (1990); Bryan v. Lincoln, 168 W.Va. 556, 285 S.E.2d 152 (1981); Br......
-
Eshelman v. True the Vote, Inc.
...marriage. See, e.g., Curtis v. Anderson , 106 S.W.3d 251, 256 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, pet. denied) ; McLain v. Gilliam , 389 S.W.2d 131, 132 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1965, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ; Shaw v. Christie , 160 S.W.2d 989, 991 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1942, no writ). In that circumstance, "[a] g......