Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Dorman v. Arnold

Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)

Decided September 17, 1996No. 06-96-00014-CVPublished

1ConcurrenceGrant, Justice

In addition to the point discussed in the majority opinion, I would add that there is no evidence in this case of any type of delivery. *230A gift requires more than a promise; it requires both intent to make a gift and execution by delivery or other transfer of the property. Thornton v. Rains, 157 Tex. 65, 299 S.W.2d 287, 288 (1957).

The delivery of a gift may be either actual or constructive. Bishop v. Bishop, 359 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex.1962). However, a review of numerous Texas cases on this subject reveals that both types of delivery require some positive act on the part of the giver.2

Arnold…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Slay v. Burnett TrustTexas Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Bishop v. BishopTexas Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Krueger v. WilliamsTexas Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Thornton v. RainsTexas Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Benavides v. Laredo Nat. BankCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1936

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API