Newman v. Bost

Nature of the Case

This was an appeal from a finding of a valid gift causa mortis.

Facts

While on his deathbed, the decedent gave his housekeeper, Newman (P), his keys. He told her that he wished her to have everything in the house, pointing out particular furniture. This was done in the presence of a witness, Houston. The intestate had previously announced his intention to marry Newman.

The decedent’s life insurance policy worth $3,000 was found inside a piece of furniture. Newman claimed that the decedent gave this policy to her. The administrator of the decedent’s estate, Bost (D), claimed that no valid gift was made. Bost sold all the furniture and collected the proceeds of the sale of the personal items.

Newman sued Bost to regain the value of these items in conversion. At trial, it was discovered that on the last day of March 1896, the intestate was stricken with paralysis and was confined to his bed until he died. When he realized that he was dying he had Houston call Newman into the room and then made his gift to her. The court held that a valid gift causa mortis was made and Bost appealed.

Issues

  1. What is required for a finding of a gift causa mortis?
  2. Does a constructive delivery satisfy the requirement for a gift causa mortis?
  3. Is a symbolic delivery sufficient to make a gift valid?

Holding and Rule of Law

  1. A gift causa mortis requires an intention to make a gift, and a delivery of the thing given.
  2. Yes. A constructive delivery can satisfy the requirement for a gift causa mortis.
  3. No. A symbolic delivery is not sufficient to make a gift valid.

A gift causa mortis also requires but one witness and no publicity is to be given that the gift has been made and no probate or registration is required. The intent to make the gift need not be announced but may be inferred from the facts attending the delivery but it must be appear that the party making the gift knew what he was doing and that he intended a gift.

Constructive delivery is permitted when it plainly appears that it was the intention of the donor to make the gift, and when the things intended to be given are not present, or, when present but are incapable of manual delivery due to their size and weight. However, manual delivery is required when the articles are present and capable of manual delivery.

The doctrine of donatio causa mortis is in direct conflict with the statute of frauds and of wills and the prevention of fraud. Therefore we must not extend the doctrine and strictly construe its application.

The decedent was on his deathbed, and it was clearly impossible for him to physically give Newman all of the furniture indicated. Therefore, the passing of the keys represented a constructive delivery to those items in the room capable of being locked and unlocked by the keys. However, the insurance policy is another matter. It could easily have been delivered. The other articles of household furniture must remain in the estate of the deceased because there was no delivery, as Newman was not given the keys to them but only the keys to the room that the intestate died in. Newman is entitled to the furniture in the room, but not to the insurance policy nor to the other furniture in rest of the house.

Disposition

Judgment reversed with order for a new trial.


Related posts: