Grangiac v. Arden
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action for money had and received to the use of the plaintiff, to recover the amount of the money drawn as a prize in a lottery. The cause was tried at the sittings in New-York, in October, 1811, before Mr. Justice Van Ness.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action for money had and received to the use of the plaintiff, to recover the amount of the money drawn as a prize in a lottery. The cause was tried at the sittings in New-York, in October, 1811, before Mr. Justice Van Ness. It was proved, by A. Herring, one of the managers of the almshouse lottery, that the defendant bought several tickets in that lottery, one of which, number 7,470, drew a prize of 5,000 dollars, which he paid to the defendant, about the year 1794, or before 1797. The ticket was lost or destroyed. Soon after the prize was drawn, the witness congratulated the…
1Per curiam
There can be no doubt but delivery of possession is necessary to constitute a valid gift. This, however', was matter of fact upon which the jury have passed. And we cannot say their verdict is not warranted by the testimony. The lapse of time since the transaction took place, ought to be taken into consideration, and induce a more liberal conclusion from circumstances than ought to be allowed to more recent transactions. The evidence from which the jury have inferred a delivery, is the declaration and acknowledgments of the defendant. And these are numerous, and as full and ample as words…
2Cited by30 opinions
- Telford v. PattonIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
- Brabrook v. Boston Five Cents Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Minor v. RogersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1873
- Craig v. CraigNew York Court of Chancery · 1848
- Foley v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.