Hitch v. Davis
High Court of Chancery of Maryland
[The allegations of the bill and answer, and the facts of this case, will be found fully stated in the following opinions of the Chancellor.]]
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor:
In the case of Pennington, Adm’r of Patterson vs. James C. Gittings, Executor of James Gittings, 2 G. & J., 208, one of the questions raised and discussed in this case was examined and decided by the Court of Appeals, and upon the principles there settled, this case, so far as the same question is concerned, must depend.
It was there decided that neither a donatio inter vivos or a donatio mortis causa by mere parol was effectual. That in either case a delivery of the thing intended to be given was essential to the perfection of the gift, and that this delivery must be according…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Pennington v. GittingsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1830
- Gibson v. McCormickCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1838
- Chalmers v. ChambersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1823
- Bentley v. CowmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1834
- Bradley v. HuntCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1832
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Union Trust Co. v. HawkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1928
- Ward v. NewboldCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1911
- Wald v. WaldCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1931
- Crouse v. JudsonNew York Supreme Court · 1903
- Smith v. BurnetSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1882
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.