Roberts's Appeal
| Decision Date | 26 June 1877 |
| Citation | 85 Pa. 84 |
| Parties | Roberts's Appeal. Reed <I>et ux. versus</I> Roberts <I>et al.,</I> Administrators of Thomson. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, WOODWARD and STERRETT, JJ.
Appeal from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas, No. 4, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1877, No. 225. Certified from the Eastern District.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
William A. Porter, for appellants.—A voluntary gift is of no effect unless executed by the transfer of the property intended to be given, and by the delivery of the usual evidences of the title to such property: Antrobus v. Smith, 12 Vesey Jr. 39; Noble v. Smith, 2 Johns. 52; Pearson v. Pearson, 7 Id. 26; Plumstead's Appeal, 4 S. & R. 544; Lee v. Luther, 5 Wood. & M. 519; In re Campbell's Estate, 7 Barr 100; Withers v. Weaver, 10 Id. 391; Lonsdale's Estate, 5 Casey 407; Kidder v. Kidder, 9 Id. 268; Pringle v. Pringle, 9 P. F. Smith 281; Trough's Estate, 25 Id. 115; Zimmerman v. Streeper, 25 Id. 147; Trimmer v. Danby, 25 L. J. Ch. 424.
A purchase or conveyance made with the money of one in the name of another, raises a legal presumption of a resulting trust in favor of the former: Lloyd v. Spillet, 2 Atk. 148; Kisler v. Kisler, 2 Watts 323; Jackman v. Ringland, 4 W. & S. 149; Lynch v. Cox, 11 Harris 265; Brabrook v. Boston Five Cent Savings Bank, 104 Mass. 228; Clark v. Clark and Trustee, 108 Id. 522.
The consideration of blood or natural affection is insufficient to support even a promise to give, where the promise has not been performed.
As far back as the reign of Elizabeth, it was held in the case of Bret v. J. S. et ux., Cro. Eliz. 756, that "natural affection of itself is not sufficient consideration to ground an assumpsit." Also, in the same reign, in the case of Harford v. Gardiners, 2 Leonard 30, the court say: "Love is not a consideration upon which an action can be grounded — the like of friendship." See also, Mills v. Wyman, 3 Pick. 207; Fink v. Cox, 18 Johns. 145; Kennedy's Ex'r v. Ware, 1 Barr 445; Lyon v. Marclay, 1 Watts 271.
A. Sydney Biddle and George W. Biddle, for appellees.—A court of chancery will give effect to a perfect gift by declaring the donee's rights: Langdon v. Allen, 1 W. N. C. 395; Sidmouth v. Sidmouth, 2 Beav. 447; Ellison v. Ellison, 6 Vesey 656 a, 661; Tierny v. Wood, 19 Beav. 330; Parnell v. Hingston, 3 Sm. & G. 337; Gilbert v. Overton, 2 Hemming & Miller 110.
Where a voluntary gift has been perfected it cannot be revoked: Clavering v. Clavering, 2 Vernon 473; Boughton v. Boughton, 1 Atk. 625; Knye v. Moore, 1 Sim. & Stu. 61; Simonton's Estate, 4 Watts 180; Rycroft v. Christy, 3 Beav. 238; Sidmouth v. Sidmouth, supra; Cressman's Appeal, 6 Wright 147.
The mere fact that the instrument by which the gift operates, or which is the evidence of the completion of the transfer, is retained by the donor, does not render the gift revocable. Nor if the property given is a fund, does the fact that the donor retains possession and control of it divest an executive gift: Worrall v. Jacob, 3 Meriv. 256; Knye v. Moore, supra; Sidmouth v. Sidmouth, supra; Browne v. Cavendish, 1 Jones & Latouche 606; Kiddill v. Farnell, 5 Weekly Reporter 324: Evans v. Jennings, 6 Id. 616; Langdon v. Allen, supra. Knowledge by the donee that the gift has been made, is not necessary to its completeness or irrevocability: Clavering v. Clavering, supra; Sidmouth v. Sidmouth, supra; Langdon v. Allen, supra; Smith v. Lyne, 2 You. & Col. Ch. 345; Middleton v. Pollock, Ex parte Elliott, Law Rep. 2 Ch. Div. 104. A thing given is completely transferred where the legal title has actually vested in the donee: Ellison v. Ellison, supra; Xenos v. Wickham et al., 14 C. B. N. S., 108 E. C. L. R. 435, 860; Fowkes v. Pascoe, Law Rep. 10 Ch. App. 343, 349; Middleton v. Pollock, supra.
No presumption of a resulting trust where purchase is made for one standing in relation of child, as in this instance: 2 Story's Eq. J., § 1202; Dyer v. Dyer, 2 Cox 92; Glavister v. Hewer, 8 Vesey 195; Rider v. Kidder, 10 Id. 367; McIntire v. Hughes, 4 Bibb (Ky.) 186; Dennison v. Goehring, 7 Barr 175.
See also the following cases, bearing upon the several propositions above: Ray v. Simmons, 15 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 701; Hill v. Stevenson, 63 Me. 364; Howard v. Windham County Savings Bank, 40 Verm. 597; Millspaugh v. Putnam, 16 Abbott's Prac. 380; Gardner v. Merritt, 32 Md. 78; Currant v. Jago, 1 Collyer 261.
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered, June 26th 1877, PER CURIAM.
The decree in this case is to be affirmed for the reasons given by the learned judge in the court below.
Decree affirmed, with costs to be paid by the appellants, and the appeal is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Van Tassell
...of the existence of a donative intent. Under the circumstances, a manual delivery of the certificates was not necessary. In Roberts's Appeal, 85 Pa. 84, 86, it said: 'The gift is complete by the delivery of the thing itself, for transferring the shares to her upon the books of the company i......
-
Phila. Trust Co., Ex'r of Cummings v. Phila. & Erie R.R.
... ... & Erie R.R., Appellant No. 437Supreme Court of PennsylvaniaApril 2, 1894 ... Argued: ... January 8, 1894 ... Appeal, No. 437, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, from judgment ... of C.P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1891, No. 841, on verdict ... for plaintiff, as ... ...
-
Frazier v. Okla. Gas & Elec. Co.
...is thereby divested of all right and title to the stock and that the donee is thereby protected against retraction of the gift. Appeal of Roberts, 85 Pa. 84; Jean v. Jean, 207 Cal. 115, 277 P. 313; Lynch v. Lynch, 124 Cal.App. 454, 12 P.2d 751; Thomas v. Thomas, 70 Colo. 29, 197 P. 243; Chi......
-
In re Thompson's Estate
...is good evidence of a design to part with the right of property in favor of another and of an absolute transfer of title to him. Roberts Appeal, 85 Pa. 84. In addition to that, all of transferees, several years prior to the death of the deceased, sold several thousand shares of the capital ......