Case Name: SABRA J. PARKER v. WILLIE B. RICKS
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1862-06
Citations: 8 Jones 447
Docket Number: 
Parties: SABRA J. PARKER v. WILLIE B. RICKS.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 447–449

Head Matter:
SABRA J. PARKER v. WILLIE B. RICKS.
Where A handed over a sum of money to B, for the use of C, and took from B a certificate, in writing, expressing that it was the sum given to Oin A’s will, and obliging B to pay the interest annually to 0, it was held that A had no right to demand and recover the money from B.
Action of debt, tried before Bailey, J., at the Spring Term, 1861, of Edgecombe Superior Court.
CASE AGREED.
The action was brought on the following article of writing, given by the defendant to the plaintiff:
“ This is to certify, that Mrs. S. J. Parker has placed in my hands the sum of one thousand dollars, for the use and benefit of Miss C. P. Battle, during her life, and also after her death, to remain in my hands until called for by the said C. P. Battle, the interest to be paid annually- to the said C. P. Battle, for her own use, this being the sum given in her last will and testament to C. P. Battle. May 31st, 1856.
(Signed,). W. B. Ricks.”
On which paper, the following credit is endorsed : “ May 31st, 1857, Received sixty dollars in full for the interest up to day áncf date above written.”
It is admitted that plaintiff demanded the sum above mentioned, ($1000,) before suit brought; also, that C. P. Battle was living when the action was commenced.
It is agreed, that if the Court should be of opinion with the plaintiff on the case agreed, judgment should be rendered in her favor for the sum above mentioned, with interest from 31st of May, 1858, otherwise for the defendant. The Court gave judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff appealed.
B. F. Moore, for plaintiff. ■
Strong, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Manly, J.
We can see no reason for reversing the judgment rendered in the Court below. Indeed, the case seems tó us so entirely free from any question, that we regret the appellant has not furnished us with the grounds of her appeal.
The certificate, under date of 31st of May, 1856, is evidence of a purpose, on the part of the plaintiff, to set apart the sum -of money, therein mentioned, for the use of Miss Battle, absolutely ; the words are plainly such as would be used between persons making a voluntary and unconditional transfer of pro perty from one, to the other. This is the definition of a gift.
A gift is no more revocable, in its nature, than a conveyance or transfer of property in other modes. The possession being given with the intent to part with the property in the thing, the right of dominion for all purposes goes with it. This is too plain to admit a difference of opinion. The fact disclosed by the instrument of writing, that the money, in question, was .the sum given to Miss Battle, in the will of the plaintiff, does not affect the case. The donor could make a gift of the money m presentí, notwithstanding the provision in her will. The will being ambulatory and revocable, either in whole or in part, it was competent for Mrs. Parker, in her life-time, to make any disposition of the money which she might think proper. Such disposition would be obligatory, and the legacy be adeemed. The putting the money in the hands of a trustee, during the life of the donor, does not alter the irrevocable nature of the transaction. It might answer the purpose of securing more certainly the enjoyment of her bounty to the object of it, but cannot operate to impair it. The recall of gifts, once validly made, is not among the resources of those who may be excited by passion, or seized with an extraordinary spirit of gain.
Pee Cubiam,
Judgment affirmed.