Coutant v. Schuyler
New York Court of Chancery
The bill in this cause was filed against the administrators of W. Reynolds, deceased, and David Marsh, to recover the amount of a promissory note given by the latter to Reynolds, and which the complainant alleged was given by the intestate, in his last sickness, to Marsh, to be delivered to her as a gift, causa mortis.
Read the full summary
The bill in this cause was filed against the administrators of W. Reynolds, deceased, and David Marsh, to recover the amount of a promissory note given by the latter to Reynolds, and which the complainant alleged was given by the intestate, in his last sickness, to Marsh, to be delivered to her as a gift, causa mortis. The questions raised on the argument of the cause were: 1. Whether a promissory note was a proper subject.of such gift: 2. Whether it was in fact ever delivered for that purpose: 8. Whether the intestate, was of sound and disposing mind and memory at the time he made such gift.…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor :—The first question which arises in *319this case is, whether the note of a third person is a proper subject of a gift causet mortis. Without taking the trouble to go through all the English cases on the question, whether a chose in action is the proper subject of such a gift, it is sufficient to say it has been decided there, that a promissory note was not a proper subject for such a gift, and that abondwas;[1] (Miller v. Miller, 1 Pr. Wms. 358; Snellgrove v. Bailey, 3 Atk. 214; Gardner v. Parker, 3 Mad. Rep. 184.) In the case of Wells v. Tucker, (3 Binney, 366,) the Supreme…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brown v. BrownSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1847
3Cited by22 opinions
- Grymes v. . HoneNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Harris v. . ClarkNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
- Grey v. . GreyNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Craig v. CraigNew York Court of Chancery · 1848
- Dickeschied v. Exchange BankWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1886
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.