Source: https://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Law-Of-Contracts-2/Section-II-Of-Gifts-Causa-Mortis.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:06:00+00:00

Document:
( f) For American cases in which this question is considered, see Thomson v. Dougherty, 12 S. & R. 448; Hanson v. Buckner, 4 Dana, 251; Hudual v. Wilder, 4 MeCord, 294; Sexton v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 229; Gannard v. Eslava, 20 Ala.
732; Clark v. Depew, 25 Penn. St. 509 Trimble v. Rateliffe, 9 B. Mou. 511; Haw kins v. Moffit, 10 B. Mon. 81.
(ff) Knott v. Hogan, 4 Met. (Ky.) 99 Champney v. Blanchard, 39 N. Y. 111.
he takes as trustee for the donee the gift is complete. In re Richards, 36 Ch. D. 541; Devol v. Dye, 123 Ind. 321; Frazier v. Perkins, 62 N. H. 69. See also Wood-burn v. Woodburn, 123 Ill. 608; Stephenson's Adm. v. King, 81 Ky. 425; Dunbar v. Dunbar, 80 Me. 152; Williams v. Guile, 117 N. Y. 343; Gano v. Fisk, 43 Obi.. St. 462.
1 Monatt v. Parker, 30 La. An. 585; Stewart v. Hidden, 13 Minn. 43; Walker v. Joseph Dixon Crucible Co. 47 N.J. Eq. 342; Bedell v. Carll, 33 N. Y. 581; Kellogg V. Adams, 51 Wis. 138.
2 Williams v. Forbes, 114 Ill. 167. But if under seal such a note or promise is binding. Krell v. Codman, 154 Mass. 454; Boss's Appeal, 127 Pa. 4.
3 In Gourley v. Linsenbigler, 51 Pa. 345, 350, it is said: " It is evident that the language used by the authorities in speaking of - in contemplation of death - in expectation of death - or - in apprehension of death - applies to the cases of illness ending in death, the last illness which makes it a death-bed disposition." Dicta of similar import may be found in other cases. Chancellor Kent, however, says, " The apprehension of death may arise from infirmity and old age, or from external or anticipated danger." 2 Kent's Com. *444. And in Ridden v. Thrall, 125 N. Y. 572, a gift made under apprehension of death from an impending surgical operation was supported, though the donor in fact died from another cause before he had fully recovered from the effects of the operation. The court intimate, however, that had the donor recovered from the effects of the operation, before he was attacked by the disease which proved fatal, the gift could not have been supported.
(g) Jones v. Selby, Prec.Ch.300; Drury v. Smith, 1 P. Wms. 404; Snellgrove v. Bailey, 3 Atk. 214; Lawson v. Lawson, 1 P. Wms. 441; Miller v. Miller, 3 P. Wms. 356; Ward v. Turner, 2 Ves. 431. There seems to be no limit in law to the extent of a donatio causa mortis. Meach v. Meach, 24 Vt. 591; Dresser v. Dresser, 46 Me. 48. But see Headley v. Kirby, 18 Penn. St. 326.
(h) Dole v. Lincoln, 31 Me. 422; Huntington v. Gilmore, 14 Barb. 243; Drew v. Hagerty, 81 Me. 231. In England, the law seems not to be settled on this point. Moore v. Dalton, 7 E. L. & E. 134, differs from the cases first cited; while Gough v. Findon, 7 Exch. 48, 8 E. L. &. E. 507, confirms them. See note, ante p. *235.
(hh) Tillinghast v. Wheaton, 8 R. I. 536; Pierce v. Boston Savings Bank, 129 Mass. 425.
1 See cases cited in note 1, ante p. *235. Also Rowland v. Phillips, 13 Southwestern Rep. 1101 (Ark.); Daniel v. Smith, 75 Cal. 548; Fearing v. Jones, 149 Mass. 12; Shackelford v. Brown, 89 Mo. 546; Trenholm v. Morgan, 28 S. C. 268; Yancey v. Field, 85 Va. 756. But see Ellis v. Secor, 31 Mich. 185.
- Basket v. Haskell, 107 U. S. 602, 615; Smith v. Smith's Adm. 30 N. J. Eq. 564; Sanborn v. Sanborn, 65 N. H. 172. See Burke v. Bishop, 27 La. An. 465; although accompanied by a delivery of his banker's pass-book. Beak v. Beak, L. R. 13 Eq. 489. But a certificate of deposit may be the subject of a donatio mortis causa, Basket v. Haskell, 107 U. S. 602; Conner v. Root, 11 Col. 183. And none the less so because the donor also gives with it a check for the amount of the certificate. In re Dillon, 44 Ch. D. 76. See also Rolls v. Pearce, 5 Ch. D. 730.
Gifts causa mortis are wholly void as against existing credi(i) Hill v. Chapman, 2 Bro. Ch. 612. This has not been recently doubted.
4 Cush. 87, and Smith v. Kittredge, 21 Vt. 238; Veal v. Veal, 27 Beav. 303; Rankin v. Weguelin, 27 Beav. 309; Drake v. Heiken, 61 Cal. 346.
(jj) Walsh v. Sexton, 55 Barb. 251.
(jl) Richardson v. Richardson, L. R. 3 Eq. 686. See Morgan v. Malleson, L. R. 10 Eq. 475.
( jm) Linsenbigler v. Gourley, 66 Penn. St. 166. [See also Walsh's Appeal, 122 Pa. 177, as to the necessity of an intention to make an immediate gift].
(jn) Virgin v. Gaither, 42 Ill. 39.
(l) See cases cited in note (f), p. *235.
(m) See post, Chap. on Specific Performance, sect. 2.
1 And gifts made with a view of depriving the donor's wife of her share of his estate were held invalid in Manikee's Adm. v. Beard, 85 Ky. 20.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.