Court Opinion

ID: 9649976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:16:33.416387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:16.442818
License: Public Domain

*263Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
I am unable to agree with the majority’s conclusion that the record here established that the decedent-father made a valid gift intervivos to his sons of the controlling shares of stock in the family-owned corporation. The majority relies on the testimony-of. the son that “his father was in personal financial difficulty and in order to place Seventy-five shares of the stock of the corporation then registered in his name beyond the execution process, he transferred the registration of the ownership .thereof to the. witness; . . ."*
It is undisputed that the purpose of transfer was "to place seventy-five shares of the stock of the corporation. . . beyond the execution process." Donative intent was not the motivation for the transfer, and without "`An intention to make the gift then and there.'" (Brightbill v. Boeshore, 385 Pa. 69, 74, 122 A. 2d 38 (1956)) there can be no valid gift. There is nothing in the record which could conceivably support the gift approved by the majority. In the absence of a gift, the stock remained the property of decedent and passed under the terms of his will to his widow.
I would, therefore, reverse-the decision of the court en banc.

 From the opinion of the majority.