Legal Opinion
Salmon v. Pittenger
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided June 24, 1937PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The burden of proving the existence of the prescribed elements indispensible to a valid gift inter vivos by evidence that is clear, cogent and convincing, is upon the one who asserts and seeks to establish the same.
A gift can only be established by proof showing, first a donative intention on the part of the donor; second, delivery of the subject-matter of the gift; third, that the donor has stripped himself of all ownership and dominion over the subject-matter of the gift. Swayze v. Huntington, 82 N.J. Eq. 127; affirmed, 83 N.J. Eq. 335; Mullen v. Mullins,130 Atl. Rep. 628; affirmed, 98 N.J.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Reeves v. ReevesNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928
- Swayze v. HuntingtonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1914
- Swayze v. HuntingtonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1913
- Mullen v. MullenSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1925
- Kirkpatrick v. KirkpatrickNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hanstein v. KellyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1942
- Verdi v. Jefferson Trust Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1938