Shurtleff v. Francis
| Decision Date | 26 June 1875 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Augustine Shurtleff v. Helen Francis & others |
Norfolk. Bill in equity by the son and executor of Samuel A Shurtleff against Helen Francis and Isabella Coolidge daughters of said Samuel A., and against their minor children, asking the instructions of the court whether certain assignments of mortgages made by the testator to the plaintiff were valid, or were invalid and passed as property under his will.
The case was reserved by Endicott, J., upon the bill, answers replication and evidence, for the consideration of the full court. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.
W. W. Warren, for the plaintiff.
C. A. Welch, for the daughters.
P. E. Tucker, for the guardian ad litem of the minor children.
The testator executed assignments of certain mortgages held by him to the plaintiff. A part of the assignments ran to the plaintiff to his own use, a part to him as trusted of Helen Francis, and a part to him as trustee of Isabella Coolidge. The main question in this case is whether these assignments were delivered to the plaintiff so that the property in the mortgage debts passed to him before the death of the testator. If they were thus delivered, he would hold the property for the purposes and upon the trusts created or declared by the assignments; if they were not delivered, the property remained undisposed of at the death of the testator and would be subject to his will.
The question presented is purely a question of fact, and upon a careful consideration of all the evidence we are satisfied that there was no delivery. To constitute a delivery to the plaintiff, it is not enough to show that the assignments passed into his hands; it must be shown that the testator delivered them to him with the intention to pass the property in the debts and mortgages to him. The plaintiff nowhere testifies that they were delivered to him as his property. He states that his father gave them to him at the dates of their respective acknowledgments, "with instructions, in case he died before I did, to put them on record at once," and that nothing else was said at the time. The inference is strong that it was not intended or understood that the assignments were to be operative until the death of the assignor, and the subsequent acts of both parties strengthen this inference. The plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler Building and Investment Company v. Dunsworth
... ... so far as the coupons were concerned. As to the contract of ... guaranty see 9 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law, 67; Shurtleff v ... Francis, 118 Mass. 154; Johnson v. Lewis, 13 ... Minn. 364; 15 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law, 843, n. 7; Nelson ... v. Brown, 140 Mo. 589. (3) ... ...
-
Boyle v. Owens
...wills and was a nullity and did not transfer title to the property. Hawkes v. Pike, 105 Mass. 560, 7 Am.Rep. 554; Shurtleff v. Francis, 118 Mass. 154; Hale v. Joslin, 134 Mass. 310; Parrott v. Avery, 159 Mass. 594, 35 N.E. 94, 22 L.R.A., 153, 38 Am.St.Rep. 465; Tewksbury v. Tewksbury, 222 M......
-
Provart v. Harriss
...adopted (1 Devl. Deeds, § 283), it is supported by the great current of authority. See, Hawkes v. Pike, 105 Mass. 560;Shurtleff v. Francis, 118 Mass. 154; Doe v. Knight, 5 Barn. & C. 671; Stilwell v. Hubbard, 20 Wend. 44; Brown v. Brown, 66 Me. 316; Jackson v. Dunlap, 1 Johns. Cas. 114;Bald......
-
Southbridge RE, LLC v. Kiavi Funding Inc.
...shown that the assignor delivered it to him with the intention of passing the property in the debt and mortgage to him." Shurtleff v. Francis, 118 Mass. 154, 154 (1875). See also Frankowich v. Szczuka, 71 N.E.2d 761, (Mass. 1947) ("The factors essential to delivery [of a deed] are that the ......