Sanborn v. Sanborn
| Decision Date | 26 July 1889 |
| Citation | 65 N.H. 172,18 A. 233 |
| Parties | SANBORN v. SANBORN et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Heard on agreed statement of facts.
Assumpsit by Abraham B. Sanborn against ————Sanborn and others, executors, upon a promissory note for $500. Heman Sanborn, in anticipation of and a few hours before his death, made a note payable on demand, after his decease, to his son. He delivered it to one Robinson, with instructions to keep it until six months after his death, or until his executors would be enabled to pay it out of his funds, and then to deliver it to the payee. Plaintiff did not know of the note until after Heman's death. Decedent told Robinson that the note was designed in place of a codicil to his will, as a gift to plaintiff, and was without further consideration.
D. B. Donovan, for plaintiff. Chase & Streeter, for defendants.
The note was an executory promise made upon no sufficient legal consideration, and no action can be maintained upon it. It is invalid as a gift causa mortis. The donor's own promissory note, payable to the donee, cannot be the subject of a donatio causa mortis. Copp v. Sawyer, 6 N. H. 386; Flint v. Pattee, 33 N. H. 520; Parish v. Stone, 14 Pick. 198. It cannot operate as a bequest, because it was not executed in conformity with the requirements of the statute of wills. Bartlett v. Remington, 59 N. H. 364; Towle v. Wood, 60 N. H. 434; Morey v. Sohier, 63 N. H., 507, 513, 3 Atl. Rep. 636. Judgment for the defendants.
CARPENTER, J., did not sit. The others concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bane v. Guinn
...Alvord, 118 Cal. 655, 50 P. 757; 1 Daniel on Negotiable Instruments, 25; Bartlett's Petition, 163 Mass. 509, 40 N.E. 899; Sanborn v. Sanborn, 65 N.H. 172, 18 A. 233; Matter of James, 146 N.Y. 78, 48 Am. St. Rep. 40 N.E. 876; Shaw v. Camp, 160 Ill. 425, 43 N.E. 608.) It is a rule of law that......
-
Albert Lea College v. Brown
...160 Ill. 425; Williams v. Forbes, 114 Ill. 167; Richardson v. Richardson, 148 Ill. 563; Graves v. Safford, 41 Ill.App. 659; Sanborn v. Sanborn, 65 N.H. 172; Holmes v. Roper, 141 N.Y. 64; 14 Am. & Eng. Enc. Ed.) 1016, 1017, 1030, notes and cases; Tracy v. Alvord, 118 Cal. 654; Raymond v. Sel......
-
Estate of Labombarde v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 3937-70.
...preexisting obligation to form a basis for an effective promise. Martin v. Stone, 67 N.H. 367, 29 Atl. 845 (1893); Sanborn v. Sanborn, 65 N.H. 172, 18 Atl. 233 (1889); Flint v. Pattee, 33 N.H. 520 (1856). In this regard the court in Johnson v. Greenough, 33 N.H. 396, 398-399 (1856), stated:......
-
Winchell v. Sanger
...be a gift inter vivos, because there was no delivery; nor could it be a good donatio causa mortis, for the same reason. Sanborn v. Sanborn, 65 N. H. 172, 18 Atl. 233. The administrator on an estate is, in a sense, a trustee for all the parties interested in that estate. Farr v. Newman, 4 Te......