The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1885-03-04
DIGEST OF HAWAIIAN LAWS.
BY II. ThSmpsOn OF the Honolulu
RAr.
DoNATTo MoBTIs cAUsA.

WIG 0OAeSJ VI Ills USE the IGhnsdcIlOA
would only amount to a promise to give.
which, being without consideration. would
be a nullity. The intention to give must
be accompanied by delivery. and the
delivery must be made with an intention
to give. The practical question, there
fore. is, what is a sufficient delivery The
delivery may be made directly to the
donee, or to an agent or trustee on his
behalf; but not to an agent of the donor.
1t may be actual-a manual possession of
the article itself by the donee or his agent
or constructive. If constructive, it must
be more than any mere words, and more
than any mere symbolic act. con-
structive must be something which COM
pletely terminates the donors custody and
control of the article donated, and which
places it wholly under the donee's power,
and enables him, without further act on
the donors part, to reduce it to his
manual possession. All the cases which
hold q constructive delivery to be good,
whatever be their special circumstances,
will be found to conform to this criterion /;
that the donor parts with all control and
power of exercising dominion, while the
donee obtains the exclusive power of
taking physical possession and custody of
the article, so that it is in fact placed
under his sole dominion. Wells. Sen.,
431 Eq. Lead. Cas-, 1916. As de-
livery is necessary, it follows as further
donee must accept it. Such acceptance,
however, will be presumed when the gift
is for his advantage in the absence of all
contrary evidence. Pom. Ex. Jur., So
to 80 and authorities.
REvoCATIoN.-The peculiar element Of
the donation cdMSG morris, which dis
tinguishes it from the one inter ViUos,
is it's revocable nature.
Although it be absolute in it's form, an
although the thing must be delivered to
the denee, yet the transaction is inchoate
and the property remains in the donor
until his death. He may, therefore, st
any time prior to his death revoke and
annul the gift by language sufficiently in
dicating such intent. If the donee did
not, therefore, voluntarily surrender up
possession of the thing, he would retain it
as trustee for the donors executors or
administrators, who could recover the
same, or its value-31 Mich, 1876; 8 Man.
& G., 664. The donors recovery from
his sickness, or his escape from the an
tieipated peril with his life, also operates
as a revocation, and the donee would then
hold the article as a trustee for the donor.
l Eq. Lead. Cases, 1,245; 2 Yes, Ill.
Bro. Ch., 286. When a gift cdas0
na0ytiS is made in sickness, it is essential
in order to perfect it and prevent revo-
cation, that the donor should die of the
very same sickness from which he is then
suffering, and that there should be no in
tervening recovery between that illness
and his final death; and it seems that the
donee must affirmatively show the exist
ence of all these facts. 81 Md, IT'S. The
gift cannot, it seems, be revoked by the
donors will. although it may be satisfied
| by legacy given thereby. Pree. Chan,
800; Yes. Sen. 314.
EQUITABLE JURISDICTION. Since dona-
| ton cGaLs0 morris, is not in any sense a
testamentary act, and does not require
the assent or interpositiOn of the executor
or administrator to perfect the donee's
title, and does not belong to a "succes-
sion" or administration" it did not
come within the Jurisdiction of the
English ecclesiastical courts. Yes.
Sem, 431; 2 Str. TIT. The enforcement
of the gift at the suit of the donee IN
doubtedly fell within the jurisdiction of
the courts of law; but since the gift was
not absolute, but was always subject to
the rights of the donors creditors, the
remedy conferred by this Jurisdiction was
necessarily uncertain and incomplete;
under some circumstances it would be
clearly impossible to adjudicate finally
| upou the claim of the donee, until there
| had been general accounting and settle
| ment of the donors estate. Indeed
there were Substantially the same diff
culties in the way Of exercising the juris.
diction at law over these gifts, which pre-.
vented the enforcement of general legaciel
| by legal actions. For these reasons
courts of equity assumed jurisdiction
over the enforcement of gifts cdusa NOR.
tbs, and the grounds of this jurisdiction
were to some extent the same as those
J which support the jurisdiction over lega.
! cies, and over administrations generally
This jurisdiction, however, unlike that
over legacies and administrations, never
became exclusive; it was always merely con-
current; it was based not upon any equit-
able right, title, or interest of the donee
| in the thing donated, but solely upon the
uncertainty, incompleteness, and made
| quacy of the remedy which courts of Law
furnished to the donee. The jurisdictions
in equity and at law were exercised con-
currently. 2 Yes. Sr., ADJ; P. W., 356
There are, however, special circumstances
in which the jurisdiction of equity must