Sinclair v. Travis
Decision Date | 03 February 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 600,600 |
Citation | 231 N.C. 345,57 S.E.2d 394 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | SINCLAIR, v. TRAVIS et al. |
Malone & Malone, Louisburg, W. D. Sabiston, Jr., Carthage, for plaintiff appellant.
Spence & Boyette, Carthage, for defendants appellees.
While there are extensive allegations of fact in support of the position taken by defendants in this action, the evidence pivots around the letter of March 28, 1938, from N. A. Sinclair, plaintiff's deceased husband, and testator, to his daughter, the defendant Mrs. Effie S. Travis. Hence, decision on this appeal is determinable, in the main, upon proper construction as to the meaning of this letter. Defendants allege and contend that the defendants, Ruth Travis and Dorothy Travis, granddaughters of N. A. Sinclair, are the owners of the two notes on which this action is based--for that the letter created (1) a gift inter vivos from N. A. Sinclair to them; or (2) a trust in said notes for the benefit of them; or (3) an enforceable contract to devise said notes to them.
Plaintiff, on this appeal, challenges these contentions in this Court by assignments based on exception to denial by the trial court of her request for instructed verdict in her favor on the issue as to ownership of the notes, and on exceptions to peremptory charge of the court on which verdict was returned, and judgment entered.
The subject of gifts inter vivos has been under consideration, and treated by this Court, and pertinent authorities cited and assembled, in several recent decisions, among which are these: Cartwright v. Coppersmith, 222 N.C. 573, 24 S.E.2d 246, and Buffaloe v. Barnes, 226 N.C. 313, 38 S.E.2d 222; petition to rehear in the latter case being denied in written statement 226 N.C. 778, 39 S.E.2d 599.
In the latter case, Buffaloe v. Barnes, preferred stock in a corporation was the subject of the alleged gift inter vivos. Devin, J., writing the opinion for this Court, summarizes the law in this manner [226 N.C. 313, 38 S.E.2d 225]:
In Cartwright v. Coppersmith, supra, negotiable notes, such as those involved in the present action, were the subject in litigation. Mrs. Whitehurst alleged that she was the sole owner of the notes by virtue of endorsement and delivery to her by Sarah E. Elliott the payee named therein in her lifetime. There was evidence that the notes were endorsed to Mrs. Whitehurst without recourse under signature of Sarah E. Elliott, but there was none on them after death of Sarah E. Elliott. This Court, in opinion also by Devin, J., stated [222 N.C. 573, 24 S.E.2d 248]: 'Whether the transaction which constituted the basis of the appellant's case be regarded as the assignment of a negotiable instrument (C.S. § 3010 [now G.S. § 25-35]), or a gift inter vivos, in order to vest the title to the notes in Mrs. Whitehurst it must have been completed by delivery, actual or constructive, and the burden was upon her to show this. * * * to show not only the endorsement of the notes by Sarah E. Elliott, but also that the intention to give or assign them to her was completed by delivery, actual or constructive.' Then the opinion goes on: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Braswell Egg Co. v. Poultry Mgmt. Sys., Inc.
...such promisor is already bound to perform is insufficient consideration for a promise by the adverse party.’ " Sinclair v. Travis, 231 N.C. 345, 354, 57 S.E.2d 394, 400 (1950) (quoting 12 Am. Jur. Contracts § 113 ).Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Braswell, PMSI's argument ......
-
Liberty Corp. v. NCNB Nat. Bank of South Carolina
...expenses under the terms of the Plan, the reimbursement agreement fails for lack of consideration. See, e.g., Sinclair v. Travis, 231 N.C. 345, 57 S.E.2d 394, 400 (1950) ("[I]t is generally held that 'a promise to perform an act which such promisor is already bound to perform is insufficien......
-
NRC Golf Course, LLC v. JMR Golf, LLC
...the promisor is already bound to perform is insufficient consideration for a promise by the adverse party.” (citing Sinclair v. Travis, 231 N.C. 345, 57 S.E.2d 394 (1950))). Thus, where no new consideration was provided to support the modification to the Option to Purchase, the revised Opti......
-
Leggett v. Rose, 90-34-CIV-4-Mc.
...of transferring title, but there must be some unequivocal act beyond mere expression of an intention or desire. Sinclair v. Travis, 231 N.C. 345, 57 S.E.2d 394 (1950). Constructive delivery is sufficient where the donor's intention to make the gift plainly appears and the articles intended ......