Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-02-15

holding an attorneys receipt for bond In
suit. which was filed with tbe papers N
court. told the plaintiff he could baye II, and
delivered him the receipt. aud This wss held
= sufficient delivery 10 constitute 4 valid gift.
The Court said there are many things of
which sctual manual tradition cannot be
made, either from their nature or their situl.
ton at The time. ADD That the isv does not
Intend 70 take from the owner The power OF
diSposing of these. but merely requires that
ne shall DO what. under the circumstances.
viii in reason be considered equivalent TO
an actual delivery. Accordingly, SAID Judge
Csrr, Z" afO Of oNnioD QhOuQb certainly not
without doubts) that The delivery OF the re-
cciDi accompanying the giit made II valid
gift The bond itself could not he deliver
ed. II was 10 court in the custody of the
Inv. The receipt was is representative. II
was the true add eGccual way Of obtaining
the use OF the subject"
EWING vs.. EWING.
II Is manifest, however, that but for the
delivery Of the receipt the gIf' would not
havr been sustained alihOugh the bond IL
sclf could not be delivered, for in Ewing ".
Ewing, Leigh. 351. It had been previously
decided that the alleged giit oi The bond IN
question 10 that csse could not be sustained
because 10 the language OF judge Carr It
"was expressly proved that the bond never
~as delivered upr any written transfer
ma3ev And JUdge Green IN hT opinion
sold taat III the subject % the gif' be inca
psple ~ delivery It cannot be given bs
parol. bnt must be Transferred by some
writing and a delivery OF thai writing"
80 are we aware Of any authority for bold-
ing that mere verbal declaration of gift,
un1ccompan'ed bv any act or Circumstance
clearly showing surrender ard Acceptance
~ dominion over the thing sOughi 10 be
gwen, c1n constitute q valid gin under any
circumstances.
TAKEN DOWN IL WRITING.
A strong csse upon tara subject is Miller
We. J0fnc-. Gratt., 472. Tbere the de-
ccdDui 10 hi. lifetime assigned 10 the firm Of
p. E. Joifrics 4 co. certain bon Tor cpilee-
ton and Afterwards. N contemplation oi
death. dec ared his wish. which wa, taken
down in wiring by several witnesses pres
ent at the time. that hls friend !. J. Jeliries,
q member Of said firm. should have al the
bonds II his IN bis possession. IL wos held,
however, tnaf the gift was void for want OF
sufficient delivery, although the b1nfs
ecre IN toe possession OF the intended
Gonce At the time. alt Is not the possession
Of the douee, =" said fhe Court. "but the de-
livery u him by The donor, winch is material
~ dOnOiO nCrts cgNe1. Tue delivery
stauds In the place ~ nuncupltion and
must ACCOMPANY ADD form part or the gift
An aiter-acquire1 possession ~ the douee Is
nothing. and a previous and continuing pos
session, though by the authority ot TIE do
nor, Is no bettrrr Aud as addiu0nal au-
thorliios for tdc proposition that verb /
Cift without delivery cannot he susio.ncd
even where The subject ol the GIT Is 'n The
possession OF the donee see shower vs..
Pich. Z Exch. AZ; Case W. Dunuison 3
Il. T.. SS, Cutting vs. Gilman, Al H. IA.
OTHER CASES.
In Lees executor. y~. Boak-l1 Graft,
ISZ-the gift WA sutaincd because there
tie b0ud. and other evidences Of the debts
forborue N tult case we're actually delivered
bv 'he donor % the dOnee; and 80 M MORT
sons executors ". Grubb % Graft, 3i2 2-
where the donor delivered 90 The d0nee a
pockei-hoOk containing the bonds IN ques-
ton. saving, " Here. Joe. take this; take If
home with YOU and keep it,; these words
being construed ~ importing = gift although
the word give" was not used.
Pomeroy saws that the eases upon the sub
feet Of 4 cOnstrurtive delivery. nanr Of
which hc cites. e'tahH.h this criterion, thst
tho donor parts with sll control and power
81 exercising dominion while the donee ob-
talus the exclusive power OF taking physical
possession and custOdJ OF the article, a. hat
il Is in fact placed under his sole dominion.
8 POmeroy Eq., section lli9.
THE CASE HERE.
Viewed IN the light Of these principles II
Is very clear tuat the giit asserted iu The
tre.ent case cannot BE sustained. Here
there has been no delivery either 0i the
bonds themselves or Ol the means of Obtain.
INK them. and the clse as pres scnied by The
record Is simply that Of an uncompeted git
which can be enforced neither at law nor IN
equity.
counsel for the spuellceg IN the argument
referred 10 the case u Scotis Executor ".
Scott, SO Virginia 2jl. as an authority IN sup
mort of their position, hut thorr is no conflict
between that case aud the views expressed
IN this opinion.
WANTED TO AID HIS son.
I'm that case a father made several pay
mcnts on a debt for which be vas surety for
ms son: the evidence showed that he made
them. rs he declared, "ss giit and aid 10
hts SON." tie died without ever having
made any claim against the son. and TOOK
no evidence OF Indebtedness from him, and
I'm q sub,equeu; contest between the eXecu-
triN and tle son it was held that there WIS
no liability on the latter Tor the payments 80
made. I'm other words, the money was
raid for the aNowcd purpose Of aidine
the con, and with no intention ot
charging him with H.. Ueuce there
was 10 indebtedness 10 De given or forgiven
and nothing II which delivery could be
madc. TIE money was not given 90 the son,
i.ut was uad io the creditor. aud ba'lng
been psid under tina circumstances meniior'
ca there WAs never an instant oi time when
the son WIS Liable ior 70. That The case.
therefore. il no authority for the decree Of
the Circuit Court IN this case, or, IN Other
W ord,. Tor the pronos siiion that Ycrbei gl''
n bond or other chaitei is good without
delivery. Is too obyiou, for controversy.
pfcgpENT's DECLARATION.
Nor is the case affected by the declaration
~ the dccedrnt 80 the witne'S Wood that
he had given The Field bond O. his niece,
Mis- Fioid. TIE principle Is well settled
That the donors declaration that he has
eien viii no. rcricct a -lit incomplete for
want Of delivery oi possession. Rock
wood vs. Wiggln lG GRAY lO2; or, 10 quote
.he opposite language ~ Judge Carr IN
Ewing -. Ewing, N a host OF witnesses
had . owed that the decedent declared he
i.d gwen the bond m question IL would
I .ye been Of no avail without some proof ot
delivery
RECOGNITION or THE GIFT.
And equally without avail il She alleged
.ub,,o,lrnt recognition Of the gi't bV the
,imipi,trator A. was welt sad by The
esrucd counsel for the appellant. the admin
sir,tor had no more power 10 perfect the
, N than he would have had to revoke il II
/ had been completed by the decedent in his
i;.linc. Aud ~ 10 the question OF ostoppei
alluded 20 in the argument at the bar. It IS
,ue,cient to say that no such csse Is made by
ne pleading, 10 ihe court below, apd is not
therefore subject of consideration here.
The decree must be reversed and al order
entered dismi.sng the petition ned' IA the
ircuit Court.
The sub.bsadings above are the reporters,
lot Judge Lew4's.
other cases.
PhnniX Insurance Company OF New ork
md others against First National Back OF
iarrisonburg. Affirmed, Judge Richardson
i~ugering the opinion.
Bernard against Richmond, trederlcss-
,urg aud Potomac Railroad Company. Ar
med by 81. George FlIzhugh. Esq., Tor de-