Meduna v. Dayton's Estate (In re Dayton's Estate), 27797.

Decision Date18 June 1931
Docket NumberNo. 27797.,27797.
Citation237 N.W. 303,121 Neb. 402
PartiesIN RE DAYTON'S ESTATE. MEDUNA v. DAYTON'S ESTATE.
CourtNebraska Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus by the Court.

Where 10 Nebraska state fair bonds, in the sum of $1,000 each, were registered by a donor in the name of a donee, when purchased, but such bonds were kept in the safety deposit box of the donor for his convenience in collecting accruing interest thereon so long as he lived, held, that a complete delivery of such bonds to the donee was thereby effected.

Syllabus by the Court.

The delivery of certain Nebraska state fair bonds may be established by the declarations of the donor, since deceased, that such bonds were a gift to the donee.

Syllabus by the Court.

“A mere reservation of interest to the donor during his lifetime does not invalidate the gift.” In re Estate of Sides, 119 Neb. 314, 228 N. W. 619.

Appeal from District Court, Lancaster County; Shepherd, Judge.

In the matter of the estate of William Linsley Dayton, deceased. Proceedings by Ann Meduna against Frank T. Dayton, and another, individually, and as executors under the will of William Linsley Dayton, deceased, to establish ownership of certain bonds. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

C. C. Flansburg, of Lincoln, for appellants.

Sterling F. Mutz, of Lincoln, for appellee.

Heard before GOSS, C. J., and ROSE, DEAN, GOOD, EBERLY, and DAY, JJ.

DEAN, J.

Dr. William Linsley Dayton, for many years a resident of Lincoln, died testate February 28, 1930, leaving an estate of upwards of $100,000 in value. A son Frank T. Dayton, and a daughter, Mary Helen Dayton, the defendants herein, are the joint executors of the Dayton estate. Ann Meduna, the plaintiff herein, began this action in the district court for Lancaster county to establish ownership in and to 10 Nebraska state fair bonds in the sum of $1,000 each, and for an order requiring the defendants to relinquish to her the possession of the above bonds. The bonds were registered under date of July 2, 1929, in the plaintiff's name. The contention of the defendants, however, is that the delivery of the bonds to the plaintiff was incomplete and that they are a part of the decedent's estate and should be administered as such.

The trial court found that the bonds were purchased by the decedent and that delivery of the bonds to the plaintiff was fully completed during the lifetime of the decedent. The court also found that the decedent kept the bonds in his safety-deposit box to enable him to collect the interest thereon and that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the bonds and also of the interest accruing thereon subsequent to the death of the decedent. The defendants have appealed.

In his practice, Dr. Dayton was a specialist in the treatment of diseases of the ear, eye, nose and throat, and, as his assistant and nurse, the plaintiff was in his employ for almost 14 years. The salesman, from whom the doctor purchased the bonds in suit, testified that the bonds were registered shortly thereafter in the plaintiff's name.

A witness testified that she had been acquainted with the decedent and his family for many years and that she has also been acquainted with the plaintiff for many years. This witness testified that the decedent told her about the bonds in suit and that he had purchased and registered them in the plaintiff's name. She also testified that the doctor informed her that he purchased the bonds as a gift to plaintiff in recognition of her long and faithful service as his assistant.

Another witness, also a long time acquaintance of the Dayton family, testified that the doctor, in the course of a conversation with her, informed her that he had remembered the plaintiff's services in a former will, but that he was not satisfied with the provision he had made therein in her behalf, and that the bonds were therefore purchased and presented to her instead. And this witness also testified that the doctor informed her that when he died he did not want any trouble over his property. She also testified that Dr. Dayton then, in view of the foregoing, obtained a promise from her that, in the event trouble did arise over his estate, she would relate the circumstance of this gift to the end that the plaintiff would receive the bonds intended for her.

And another witness testified that Dr. Dayton talked with the witness in respect of a one time prospective purchase of certain land owned by the witness. Dr. Dayton then informed the witness that he did not care to purchase land for himself, but that he would consider purchasing some for the plaintiff. It may be noted, however, that the sale of the land was never consummated. This witness also testified that, in the course...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT