Ragan v. Hill

• Decision Date: 19 March 1904
• Citation: 80 S.W. 150,72 Ark. 307
• Parties: RAGAN v. HILL
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

80 S.W. 150

72 Ark. 307

RAGAN v. HILL

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 19, 1904

Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court in Chancery WILLIAM L. MOOSE Judge.

Reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

J. H Basham and Gilleylen & Leftwich, for appellant.

Declarations are competent to determine the character of the transaction. 14 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), 1051. The transaction was not a gift. 74 Miss. 549. There must be a complete delivery and the gift fully executed. 59 Ark. 191; 14 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1056. In gifts inter vivos the transfer must be immediate and absolute. 14 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1014; 1 Ark. 83; 11 Ark. 249; 60 Ark. 169; 59 Ark. 93, 191. A promise to make a gift canot be enforced. 57 Ark. 93; 44 Ark. 42; 107 U.S. 612. The money advanced was a loan. 44 Ark. 42; 59 Ark. 93; 195; 105 Cal. 143. As to the question of delivery, there is no distinction between gifts inter vivos and gifts causa mortis. 44 Ark. 42; 107 U.S. 612.

J. E. Cravens, for appellee. .

OPINION

BATTLE, J.

J. O. Ragan, as administrator of W. M. Rees, deceased, sued John C. Hill, Sr., and John C. Hill, Jr., partners doing business under the firm name and style of John C. Hill & Son, for $ 1,000, money loaned to them by the deceased in his lifetime, and for interest thereon. Defendants admitted the indebtedness, and alleged that it was also claimed by B. C. Rees; offered to bring the money into court; asked that B. C. Rees be made a party, and that he and the administrator of W. M. Rees, deceased, be required to interplead for the same, which was done, the administrator claiming that the money was owing to his intestate and belonged to his estate, and B. C. Rees, on the other band, claiming that it was given to him by W. M. Rees, the deceased, in his lifetime. The court rendered a decree for the same, less $ 191.85 advanced by John C. Hill & Son to pay expenses of the burial of the deceased, in favor of B. C. Rees, and the administrator appealed.

The facts in the case are substantially as follows: On the 14th day of July, 1899, W. M. Rees was an old man, being 78 years of age; was feeble; afflicted with some disease; did not expect to live long; had $ 1,000; offered to and did loan it to John C. Hill & Son; and they executed to him therefor the following instrument in writing: "Clarksville, Ark., July 14, 1899. Received from W. M. Rees one thousand dollars with interest at 4 per cent. It is agreed that in case of the death of W. M. Rees that B. C. Rees is to take charge of this money. [Signed] John C. Hill & Son." At the time he loaned the money he stated that it was "to go to B. C. Rees at his death." He was a good friend of B. C. Rees. He died on the 18th of August, 1899. John C. Hill & Son advanced $ 191.85 to pay his funeral expenses.

Was the $ 1,000 a gift to B. C. Rees?

In Newton v. Snyder, 44 Ark. 42, 45, it is said: "To establish a gift mortis causa the evidence must be sufficient to show, not only that the person in extremis designated with proper distinctness the thing to be given and the person who is to receive it, but it must establish also that the property was presently to pass, and that the intention was carried into effect by an actual or effective delivery. In this respect there is no difference between gifts inter vivos and causa mortis. Basket v. Hassell, 107 U.S. 602, 27 L.Ed. 500, 2 S.Ct. 415; Coleman v. Parker, 114 Mass. 30."

In Ammon v. Martin, 59 Ark. 191, 26 S.W. 826, it is said: "Delivery before death is just as essential to a gift causa mortis as it is to a gift inter vivos, and the same rules as to delivery are applicable to both."

In the case of Nolen v. Harden, 43 Ark. 307, the question was as to a gift inter vivos, and the court held that if the gift is intended to operate in presenti, and is accompanied by delivery, it operates at once; but if there is only an intention to give and no delivery is made, it will be inchoate and incomplete, however strong the...