Case Name: Frank W. Halstead et al., App'lts, v. Isaac W. Sherrill et al., Resp'ts
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1886-12-14
Citations: 6 N.Y. St. Rep. 15
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frank W. Halstead et al., App’lts, v. Isaac W. Sherrill et al., Resp’ts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 6
Pages: 15–19

Head Matter:
Frank W. Halstead et al., App’lts, v. Isaac W. Sherrill et al., Resp’ts.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed December 14, 1886.)
Gift—Causa mortis. ■
Where a person at the point of death, as he was advised by his physician, told the defendant, to take certain bonds either to his office or to put them in his safe, and said that he had not much “money,” but what he had he gave to “ them,” and on further questioning told who it was that he referred to by “ them.” Held, that the testimony failed to support a gift causa mortis, that the language did not clearly describe the property referred to, nor the donees, nor did it clearly express his intention to make a gift.
Appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment against them in favor of the respondent, entered upon the dismissal of their complaint at Dutchess county circuit, in an action brought to establish an alleged gift by the late G-. German Sharpsteen, of “about $20,000 in securities, and comprising nearly all his estate.
Henry M. Taylor, for app’lts; Abbett & Fuller, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Pratt, J.
The testimony offered by the plaintiffs, fails in many respects, to make a gift causa mortis.
The language used does not clearly describe the property referred to, nor the donees, nor does it clearly express an intention to make a gift.
The only property referred to with any distinctness was the "money," and whether that meant money in hand, or his bank credit, or his property generally, we can only conjecture.
Neither were the donees referred,to with any precision.
In answer to a question whether "mother and the children" were meant, we are told the answer was "yes." But what estate or share was to go to any one was left uncertain.
The direction to Sherrill to take the box to his office and take care of it, was not expressed to be, and cannot be construed as a delivery to.Sherrill as the agent of the donees.
If the dying man had an intention to make a donation causa mortis, he failed to so express himself as to enable the court to carry it into effect.
Giving to the evidence the utmost force that can be claimed, it fell far short from being sufficient to justify a verdict for plaintiffs.
Judgment affirmed with costs.
Cullen J., concurs.