Case ID: ohio-law-abs_3/html/0187-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ROBINSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 293
    No. 18757
    Edith I. O’Brien, Admrx., v. Mary O’Brien and Second National Bank of Toledo, Ohio.
    Error to the Court of Appeals of Lucas county.
    572. GIFTS—In action by donee to recover personal property from representative of alleged donee, proof of intention to give, without proof of delivery, is insufficient to carry case to jury.
    2. Delivery to a third person of a paper writing describing the property and indicating an intention to give, without directions, does not constitute delivery.
   ROBINSON, J.

1. In an action by an alleged donee to recover personal property, or its value, from the legal representative of an alleged donor, proof of the intention on the part of the alleged donor to make the gift, either inter vivos or causa mortis, without proof of delivery of the thing given, actual or constructive, to the donee, or to some person as agent or- trustee of the donee, either designated by the donor or known by the donor to have been designated by the donee, is insufficient to carry the case to the jury.

2. Delivery of a paper writing, describing personal property and indicating an intention to give such personal property to the alleged donee, to a third person by an alleged donor in the presence of the alleged donee, without any direction or instruction from either, does not constitute a delivery to the alleged donee.

Judgment reversed.

Marshall, C. J.,‘ Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur. Kinkade, J., not-participating: '. '; ' ■. . .