Newman v. Bost

Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1898 · Property

Propertygiftscausa mortisconstructive deliverysymbolic deliverydonatio causa mortisgift inter vivosdelivery

Facts

Plaintiff claimed that while Van Pelt was dying, he handed her keys and said in varying forms that the furniture or property in the house was hers. After his death, the defendant administrator collected $3,000 on a life insurance policy found in a bureau drawer, sold household property for $200.94, sold property from plaintiff's bedroom for $45, and collected $300 insurance on a piano. The policy was present in the room and capable of being manually delivered but was not taken out and handed over. The bedroom furniture had been bought for plaintiff, placed in her private room, and repeatedly declared by Van Pelt to be hers; the piano was bought by Van Pelt, kept in his parlor, and referred to as plaintiff's piano, but remained under his control.

Issue

Whether Van Pelt made valid gifts causa mortis or inter vivos of the life insurance policy, the household furniture, the bedroom furniture, and the piano. More specifically, the question was what kind of delivery is required under North Carolina law, and whether handing over keys or making statements of ownership sufficed.

Rule

To constitute a gift causa mortis, and likewise a gift inter vivos in this State, two things are indispensable: intent to make the gift and delivery of the thing given. Constructive delivery may suffice only where the property is not present or, if present, is incapable of manual delivery because of size or weight; where the property is present and capable of manual delivery, actual manual delivery is required. North Carolina does not recognize symbolical delivery for gifts either inter vivos or causa mortis.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Raleigh, Owen Mercer lay gravely ill in his apartment. A signed stock certificate was on the nightstand beside him, and he told his friend Lena Ortiz, "That certificate is yours if I do not recover," but he never picked it up or handed it to her before dying that evening.

Under the governing rule, did Lena receive a valid gift causa mortis of the stock certificate?

Explanation. A gift causa mortis requires both intent and delivery. Where the item is present and capable of manual delivery, actual manual delivery is required. Because the certificate was beside the donor and could easily have been handed over, the donor's statement alone did not complete the gift.