davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1934-07-02
Gift Questioned

The motion for new trial pre-
sents the question whether o
not Frank Casey, the deceased
made a gift inter vivos to hi
wife, Mrs. Nettie Casey, of Gel
tain securities of the par valu'
of approximately $250,000.
"The elements necessary to
constitute a valid gift are we'll
understood and are not the
subject of dispute. There must
be on the part of the donor an
intent to give, and q delivery
of the thing given, to or for
the dOnee, in pursuance Of
such intent, and on the part of
the dOnee acceptance. The sub
ject Of the gift may be chat
tells, chooses in action, or any
form Of personal property, and
what constitutes q delivery
may depend on the nature and
situation Of the thing given.
"The delivery may be SYM
bOlical or actual. that is, by
actually transferring the man.
ual custody of the chattel to
the dOnee, or giving to him the
symbol which represents pos
session. In case of bonds, note
or chooses in action, the deliv-
cry Of the instrument which
represents the debt is a gift of
the debt, if that is the inten-
ton; and So, also, where the
debt is that Of IT, donee it
may be given, as, has been
held, by the delivery of a re.
ceipt acknowledging payment
- =. The acceptance also
may be implied where the gift
otherwise complete, is, bene.
ficial to the dOnee."
''But delivery by the donor,
either actual or constructive,
operating to divest the donor
. of possession of and dominion
over the thing, is a constant.
and essential factor in every
transaction which takes effect
as a completed gift. Anything
short of this strips it of the
quality of completeness which
distinguishes an intention to
. give, which alone amounts to
nothing, from the cOnsummated
act, which changes the title.
The intention to give is often
established by most satisfactory
evidence, although the gift
fails. instruments may be ever
SO formally executed by the
donor, purpOrting to transfer
title to the dOnee, or there may
be the most explicit declaration
of an intention to give, or of
an actual present gift, yet un-
less there Is delivery the inten-
ton is defeated" Beaver v.
Beaver, III N. Y. AL, 42S-429;
see also Hahn v. Dean, 1O6
Me. SIS. g.,
The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1934-07-02
Evidence Required

"TO establish . gift there
must be evidence free from per-
sOnal interest and not equivOcal
in character that the property
claimed was delivered to dOnee
during the donors life, and
this rule is not met by the pos
session of the property, where
the poSSeSSOr has had an OppOr-
tunity to acquire the possession
by other means. In order for
this to obtain, it is not neceS-
sary that the act or the posses
sOr was improper or dishonest,
but for reasons Of public policy
the proof must show the posses
sion was obtained by delivery
with an intention to give" Atch'
ley v. Rimmer, supra.
Therefore, the mere possession
Of the key to the box, which she
had for years, is not sufficient to
establish a delivery of the secu-
rites to Mrs. Casey, unless it ap-
pears by satisfactory evidence
that Mr.. Casey actually relin-
pushed his dominion and control
over them to Mrs. Casey, so as to
divest his right and title and vest
the same in her. % c. J. 634,
Sec. %.
There can be no gift which
the law will recognize where
there is reserved to the donor
either expressly or as q result Of
the circumstances and cOndir
tiOns attending the transaction,
q power of revocation or a do
miniOn over the subject of the
gift. There must be no locus
pOenitentiae and there is al
ways q locus pOenitentiae when
the supposed donor may at any
time undo what he has done.
-. If the donor retains do
miniOn over the thing given
precisely as he had control over
it, there is obviously no per-
fected gift, because there has
been no change in possession
and there Is still an OppOrtu-
nifty to recant. Baurnschmidt v.
Baurnschmidt, SO Md. IS.
The immediate question under
consideration here is whether or
not the facts and circumstances
in evidence satisfactorily and un'
equivocally establish that Mr.,
Hoca1y ra1irnYYichnd oil CnrtrN1 onS
dominion over and claim to the
securities so as to pass the title
to Mrs. Casey.
Mr.. and Mrs. Casey were mar
ried Nov. /, 1908. They had no
children. Mrs. Casey had q son
of a previous marriage who was
born on the 18th day of october,
1886. He is living and is the father
of Robert Engle, who testifies to
the declarations Of gift made by
Mr.. Casey.
The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1934-07-02
Grandson Tells of Gift

Mr.. Casey again became i'll on
May IS, 1881, and again entered
the Emergency Hospital, where he
remained until. June 8, 1881. He
was discharged on that day, and
went to his hone, and again be-
came i'll, and reentered the Elmer
gency Hospital June 10, 1881,
where he remained until his death
on September Z, 1882. It was dur
ing the interval between June q
and 10, 1881, and wh':.e Mr.. Casey
was at his home in the Kenesaw,
that the plaintiff claims the al
legged gift inter vivos was made
Her grandson, Robert Engle, tes'
titles to declarations made by Mr.
Casey between those dates, which
were in substance that the securl-
ties belonged to Mrs. Casey.
On the 9Th day of June, 1881,
when Mr.. Casey was discharged
from the hospital there were
securities in the safety deposit
box Of the par value Of $4,000
There is testimony concerning
the activities of Mrs. Casey after
her appointment under the power
of attorney of December 81, 1928
until the death Of Mr.. Casey In
September, 1882.
Before she was given the power
of attorney, she had not con-
cerned herself with her husbands
business affairs and investments
She did not enter the safety oox
at the Park Savings Bank, al
though she had a key. She DID
not buy or sell securities. Mr.
casey was the active head Of the
family. After the 31st day OF
December, 1928, Mrs. Casey be,
came active and continued to be
the directing head of the family
until Mr.. Casey'S death. She
bought, sold and exchanged
bonds through Mr.. Hume, who
was representing the Guaranty
Company of New York. The
transactions would be conducted
in her name and on occasions
the Guaranty Company would re-
turn corrected combinations re-
citing that the transaction was
with Frank Casey, by Nettie
Casey.
The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1934-07-02

, discharged and returned to his
lhome.
During his stay at the hospital
and on December 81, 1928, Mr..
Casey executed q power Of attor-
ney, whereby he nominated and
appointed Mrs. Casey as his at
torney to make deposits and draw
checks in connection with his ac-
count with the National Metro
politan Bank of Washington. At
this time, and for some time prior
thereto, Mr.. and Mrs. Casey joint
ly maintained safety deposit box
No. GOT in the Park Savings Bank,
wherein Mr.. Casey kept his bonds
and securities. At the time Of
the execution Of this power Of at
torpey, there were in this safety
deposit box securities owned by
Frank Casey Of the par value Of
ST., 900.
The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1934-07-02
Loan Of $4,000

In May or June, 1881, Mrs.
Casey made a loan of $4,000 to
her relatives in Los Angeles, Cal,
which was secured by a mortgage
on real estate located there. The
note was made payable to Mrs.
Casey and the mortgage was in
her name. The SIC, 900 was drawn
from Mr.. Casey'S account in the
National Metropolitan Bank, by
Mrs. Casey'S check as attorney.
This note and mortgage were
placed in the safety box.
However, the evidence does
show, and think concluSively,
that both before and after the
alleged gift inter vivos, Mrs. Casey
always consulted her husband with
reference to the investments and
acquainted him with the details
Of her activities. She told him Of
the bond transactions, and both
she and Mr.. Hume frequently con-
suited with him in respect thereto.
She would exhibit to him the de-
posit slips showing the deposit Of
coupons, and he knew about the
Los Angeles loan, and character
lied it as a good investment. He
The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1934-07-02
Both Held Deposit Boxes

Later and after Mr.. Hume
represented the McKnew Com
pany, and sometime the latter
part Of 1881, Mrs. Casey dealt
with that company in the pur-
chase, sale and exchange OF Sc
curities. These transactions were
in her own name, and were
executed by Mr.. Hume. In
handling these transactions, Mrs:
Casey, acting under the power OF
attorney, freely drew checks on
Frank CaSey's account in the
National Metropolitan Bank,
signing such checks, Frank
Casey, by Nettie Casey, attorney.
On three occasions, at least,
subsequent to the 10th day OF
June, 1881, she purchased bonds
on the par value Of $4,000 by
checks drawn as attorney on the
account Of Mr.. Casey IN the
Metropolitan National Bank.
These bonds were also placed in
the safety box at the Park SAY"
ings Bank with the other bonds
and securities. =.
She frequently made deposits in
that account. She entered tho
safety box whenever necessary TO
remove securities for sale and ex-
change, and as frequently entered
the box when necessary to deposit
therein the newly acquired secur-
tiles. When the safety box No. 607
became too small for the purpose,
a large box No. 375 was rented
and held in joint names Of Mr.. and
Mrs. Casey. Later, and on the
9th day Of October, 1880, an ad.
ditional box No. 1915 was acquired
and held by them jointly. Suisse
quently, and on February "a, 1882,
after the alleged gift inter vivos,
the box No. 1915 was changed to
a larger box No. 1926, and box 375
was likewise changed to a larger
box No. 1915, both Of which were
held in the joint names Of Mr..
and Mrs. Casey, and to which each
had q key.
Mr.. Casey did not enter either
of the safety boxes from the time
Of the signing Of the power Of at
torney until his death. On one &C.
casion during that period, Mr..
Casey accompanied Mrs. Casey to
the bank and sat at table while
The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1934-07-02

'existence at the time Of the al
legged gift and continued there
after. Certainly such an ar
rangement wrought no change
in the dominion Mr.. Casey pre-
viously had over the securities.
"He could have taken every
bond and certificate Of stock
out Of the box without the
assent or even against the pro-
test Of his wife, and could
have disposed Of them just as
he pleased. The fact that the
wife had . key to the box
did not place any restriction
on the husbands control over
the property contained in the
box" Baurnschmidt vs.. Baurn-
schmidt, supra.
So far as the evidence dis
closes, Mr.. Casey retained do
minion over these securities IRE
cisely as he had control of then
for over two years immediatel,
following the execution o. thu
power of attorney on December
81, 1928, and before the alleged
gift was made.
The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1934-07-02

} Frank Casey and Nettie C. Case!
and to which each had equal &C
cess, because each had key. For
long time prior to the alleged
gift inter vivos, q safety box was
maintained by them in the same
manner and in the same bank,
and each had key. But during all
of that time, it. is conceded that
the securities in this box were the
sole property of Frank Casey
There was no actual manual de-
livery of the securities to Mrs.
Casey, nor was there symbolic de-
livery by his surrender of his key
to the safety box to her.
It is commended by the plaintiff
that as the securities were in the
possession of Mrs. Casey at the
time of the alleged gift by reason
Of her having a key to the safety
box in her possession, it was not
necessary that she go through the
useless formality of an actual sur.
render Of the securities or the key
to Mr.. Casey, so that he might
make redelivery thereof to her, in
order to effect a valid delivery of
the securities. This is true. but,
under such circumstances, it Is
equally true that the evidence to
establish the gift must be clear
and satisfactory that the donor
had relinQuiShed all control of and
claim to the property which is the
subject of the gift. The delivery
may be proved by circumstances,
but the circumstances proved
must clearly and satisfactorily
show delivery. Gray v. Gray, III
Mo. 81; 20 j. 638, Sec. %.
The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1934-07-02

PSne WenC 1nCo the vault, OpIalIleO
the box and brought it to the table
where he was seated. The box was
then opened in his presence. g,
Mrs. Casey frequently entered
the box to clip the maturing
coupons. She deposited them to
her account In the Park Savings
Bank. Mr.. Casey would endorse
his monthly salary checks and
she would deposit them to her
credit or use them for household
and other expenses. All this was
done with the knowledge of Mr..
Casey.
During this period, and when
Mr.. Casey was able to travel, they
made trips to Atlantic City, San
Antonio, Tex, and Los Angeles,
Cal. Mrs. Casey, on these occa.
sions, attended to the payment of
the hotel bills and other travel
ing expenses. Mr.. Casey was will
ing that she do this, and relied
upon her to attend to such mat
tiers. She, in a word, was the bust
ness manager for Mr.. Casey and
his agent. However, he refused
her request and the request Of
Mr.. Hume to give her power of
attorney to transact his business
with the Guaranty Company.
Mr.. Casey closed out an account
he had with the Park Savings
Bank on the 9th day of June,
1881, by giving Mrs. Casey check
for the balance Of $2,047.11 be-
cause, as they decided, it was USE
less for him to keep an account
at that bank when Mrs. Casey was
writing all the checks.
The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1934-07-02
Delivery Essential

It may be assumed that Mr..
Casey's declarations, as testified
to by Mr.. and Mrs. Robert Eng1e,
clearly establish his intention to
give the securities to his wife.
AS we have seen, however, an
intention to give is not alone
sufficient. There must be de-
livery. It is conceded by counsel
for Mrs. Casey that the mere
declarations of gift, are insuffi-
cient to establish delivery of the
property given, and that there
must be some act or circumstances
from which an inference Of de-
livery may be made. Plaintiffs
brief, p. 8. See, also, Atchley v.
Rimmer (Tenn), 255 S. w. 366;
Fouts v. Nance, SIS Okla. 266:
Chambers v. McCreary, 100 Fed.
1854, $40.
The securities, which are the
subject Of the gift, were at the
time in a safety deposit box, which
was registered in the names Of
The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1934-07-02
LACK Of LUNACY
PROVISIONS
NOTED

Lack of provisions in the code
for judicial action and record In
the case of persons adjudicated
mon compos mentis" and later
released on certificates Of COM
potency by a physician, is a prob
lem that the bar association
hopes to solve before the end Of
the year.
This question has puzzled law.
yers for years. It seemed strange
that person adjudicated a
lunatic by a jury and committed
to st. Elizabeth's Hospital. could
be released from that institution
with no more red tape than a
physicians certificate of cure or
recovery.
Again Charles v. Imlay's COM
mittee on suggestions clicked"
and first reduced the question to
a suggestion for action by the APP
preparation committee of the bar
association.
Additional information on the
matter will be supplied by Miss
Meigs, deputy clerk in charge Of
court minutes in such cases, and
necessary corrective legislation
will be presented for congressional
approval at the next session Of
Congress.
Charles E. Pledger, jr., law
partner of Frank F. NeSbit, has
returned from a visit to New
York, and thereby hangs a story.
Mr.. Pledger has just attended
the eighty-third annual conven-
ton of the Theta Delta Chi ma
tional college fraternity-the
oldest chapter in George Wash
ington University, where Mr..
Pledger graduated in 1927 with
his LIB. degree.
The story is that Mr.. Pledger
was elected president of the
grand lodge of Theta Delta Chi.
The national fraternity was
founded at Union College in 1847
and has 20 chapters located in
this country and in Canada. It's
national headquarters are at 81
West Fifty-second st., New York
city, but the convention was held
in the Thayer.West Point Hotel at
West Point, N. Y.
Mr.. Pledger is a barrister,
member of the District Bar Asso-
citation, American Bar Associa-
ton; Racquet Club and Temple
Moves Lodge, F. A. A. NJ, No. 80.
The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1934-07-02

WILLS-GIFTS INTER VIVOS
I. To constitute Oalid sift
inter UiUos there mat be on the
part of the donor an intent to
RiUe, and a delivery of the thing
siVen, to or for the donee, in
pursuance Of such intent, and on
the part Of the dOnee acceptance
thereof.
2. What constitutes delivery
may depend on the nature and
situation of the thing given. The
deliOery may be symbOlic0l or Gc-
tual, that is, by actually trdnsfer-
ring the manual custody of the
chattel to the d0nee, or giving to
him the symbol which represents
POssessiOn.
;. Delivery by the donor, either
actual or con '.'uctiOe, operating
to diOest the donor of pOssession
Of any dominion over the thing,
is a constant and essential fac
tor in every transaction Which
takes effect as a completed gift.
Anything short of this strips it
Of the quality of completeness
which distinguishes an intention
to give, Which alone AMOUNTS to
nothing, from the communicated
act, which changes the title.
4 The evidence to estoblish
the ft must be clear and satis-
factory that the donor had relin-
quished all control of and claim
to the property which is the sub
ject of the gift. The delivery may
be proved by circumstances, but
the circumstances proved must
clearly and satisfactorily chou
delivery.
S If the donor retains donain.
ion oUer the thing given precise
ly as he had control Over it, there
is obviously no perfected gift, be-
cause there has been no change
in pOssession and there is still
a" opportunity to recdnt.
June %. 1884.
In re, the Estate of Frank
Casey, Administration No. 44190,
issues were framed for contest
of will as to alleged gift inter
vivos therein contained. "A trial
was had and Justice Luhring d.
rected a verdict for the defend
ants under the alignment of
parties established. This cause
now comes on for hearing on mo-
ton for a new trial.
The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1934-07-02
Will Probated

The will executed by Mr..
Casey, and which has been ad.
mitted to probate, may be con-
sidered very properly in this con.
nection. This will furnishes an
index to the wishes, desires and
intentions Of Mr.. Casey. First
Of all he made ample provision
for his wife for as long as she
might live. H. gave all the in,
come from all the property ne
owned to her for life. At her
death, he desired that his prop
erty should go to his own rela,
tives.
He knew, of course, that by leav-
ing the corpus of his estate to
Mrs. Casey, it would go to her
son, and, perhaps, grandson at
her death. For reasons known to
him and disclosed by the evidence,
he did not wish this to happen,
and so made certain it would not
by his will. Is it, therefore, to be
supposed that he would make a
gift inter vivos of practically all
of his property to Mrs. Casey,
when he had declared in solemn
form that she should have only
the income for life?
The court is Of the opinion that
the evidence falls far short of
establishing delivery, an essential
element of a gift inter wives, and,
therefore, the motion for a new
trial is overruled.
The plaintiff was represented
by r. A. Ricketts, and r. F. Down
ming. and the defendants by D.
S. Birney and Paul Lesh.
The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1934-07-02

P res ident Ar.
thur c. Hough-
t q n Of t h e
w a S h / n gton
r. e q | Estate
Boafd--and it
can be used by
q n yone who
wishes to use it
because It is not
copyrighted.
Real estate in
the District OF
C o lsu nbia, of
course is the
best investment,
and Mr.: Hough-
ton can prove it.
The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1934-07-02

While realty values naturally
suffered a slight decline in de-
mand during the late depression,
such decline was not reflected in
the price of the land itself.
The only shrinkage in value was
in, physical improvements, and
the cause was due to shrinkage Of
inflated equities more than in
actual value.
No other form of investment
withstood the onslaughts OF de-
preston as well as real estate, Mr..
Houghton says, and in this re-
Spect he is corroborated by hum
bred others who ought to know.
That the expression invest
Your Capital in the Nations Cap
ital" is something more than a
slogan, and is an accepted max
ium elsewhere is shown by the
number of inquiries that have
come to Mr.. Houghton from all
over the country asking for in
formation regarding realty in
vestments in Washington-both
large and small.
It further indicates that the
Capital City is being recognized as
the most stable center for realty
investments many If
President Houghton'S inquiries
have come from sections which
have suffered from a boom-time,
mushroom growth in the few
years preceding the depression.
Morton Luchs, of the Shannon
LuchS firm, has been spending
most of his time out at Luchs
Manor, getting some surprises
ready for the customers in the
next few weeks.
But while he was puttering
about his one-acre tract, his staff,
working from the H Street Offices
reported IA sizeable transactions
for the month ending Saturday,
and numerous others which tine
group considered of the "all in the
days work" variety.
These included the sale of 1902
O5 Nichols Ave-. S, E., for the Ma
tional Metropolitan Bank, trustee,
to an investor.
The residence at 1917 Sixteenth
st. N. W.. was sold for approx
mate1y $1,000 to Mr.. and Mrs.
AnseI Talbert.
Four four-family flat groups in
the 1900 block South Carolina Ave.
8. e. were sold for the Commercial
National Bank to an out-of-town
investor for approximately $45, 900:
a Florida investor purchased the
st0fe:at 6709 Wisconsin Ave.,
Bethesda; DR.. and Mrs. Merton
English purchased 1915 Massachu-
sets Ave. N. w. for their home;
six four-flat units in the 500 block
Peabody st. N. w. were purchased
by a local investor for approx
mately 100000: the d a C h d
home at 1902 Farragut St. N. w.
sold for the Estate of Frank Ate
mus to Mr.. and Mrs. L. L. Ray
mond; Mr.. and Mrs. Milton Eyer
purchased the Brandenburg prop
erty, a detached home at 6522
Ridgewood Ave-, Chevy Chase.
Other purchases included 923
Fifth st. S. E. by Mrs. Emma Rob-
erts for an investment; 1854 T st.
N. w. by E. c. Reynolds for in.
vestment; 1891 Twelfth st. N. E.,
q commercial site by George S.
Williams; 1859 Harvard st. N. w.
by Harold c. Uphold as an invest
111ent; 1920 Maryland Ave. N. e.
by Ethel AbendSchein. for a home
and a Baltimore Boulevard lot in
Cottage City, Md, by j. j.: Hinkley
as q site for his own business.
The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1934-07-02
REALTY
VALUES DRAW
CAPITAL
BY DICK BAKER
Invest Your Capital in the
Nations Capital"

That is the slogan suggested by