Anderson v. Lord
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, C. J.
The plaintiff concedes that the evidence of intent to make a gift is sufficient, but contends that there was no valid delivery. Reliance is placed upon the authority of Bean v. Bean, 71 N. H. 538, in which the court says (543): “. . . in both classes of gifts [causa mortis and inter vivos] there must be ... an actual delivery of the subject-matter at the time of the declaration [of gifts] or accompanying it so nearly as to be one transaction, and that an ‘after-acquired possession, or a previous and continuing possession of the donee, though by authority of the donor, is insufficient’ ...” If…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Tenbrook v. BrownIndiana Supreme Court · 1861
- Miller v. Neff'sWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1889
- Goodrich's Exr. v. Rutland Savings BankSupreme Court of Vermont · 1908
- Barnes v. BanksIllinois Supreme Court · 1906
- Gray v. GraySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1913
3Cited by5 opinions
- Humiston v. BushnellSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978
- Leo N. Levi Memorial Hosp. Assoc. v. Caruth, Admin.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1948
- W. W. Lynch v. United States BranchCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1964
- Cravens v. HollidaySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1947
- Lynch v. United States Branch, General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1964