Belden v. Carter

4 Day 66
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedJune 15, 1809
StatusPublished
Cited by32 cases

This text of 4 Day 66 (Belden v. Carter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Belden v. Carter, 4 Day 66 (Colo. 1809).

Opinion

By the Court.

It is unnecessary to decide the question respecting the revocation of the will, as the court are of opinion that the defendant has a good title under the deed.

The grantor delivered the deed to Wright, with a reservation of a power to countermand it; but this makes no diffe rence; for it was in the nature of a testamentary disposition of real estate, and was revocable by the grant- or during his life, without an express reservation of that power.

The case, then, stands upon the same footing as if there had been no reservation of a power to countermand the deed.^i It was a delivery of a writing as a deed to the use of the grantee, to take effect at the death of the grantor, deposited in the hands of a third person to hold till that event happened, and then to deliver it to the grantee. The legal operation of this delivery is, that it became the deed of the grantor presently ; that Wright held it as a trustee for the use of the grantee; that the title became consummate in the grantee by the death of the grantor; and that the deed took effect, by relation, from the time of the first delivery. //

New trial not to be granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Johnson v. Craig
1913 OK 142 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Henry v. Phillips
151 S.W. 533 (Texas Supreme Court, 1912)
Rowley v. Bowyer
71 A. 398 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1908)
Grilley v. Atkins
62 A. 337 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1905)
Dettmer v. Behrens
76 N.W. 853 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1898)
Hagerman v. Wigent
65 N.W. 756 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1896)
Humiston v. Preston
34 A. 544 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1895)
Martin v. Flaharty
19 L.R.A. 242 (Montana Supreme Court, 1893)
Standiford v. Standiford
97 Mo. 231 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1888)
Hibberd v. Smith
4 P. 473 (California Supreme Court, 1885)
Giddings v. Giddings's Administrator
51 Vt. 227 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1878)
Thatcher v. Wardens & Vestrymen of St. Andrew's Church
37 Mich. 264 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1877)
Campbell v. Thomas
42 Wis. 437 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1877)
Wallace v. Harris
32 Mich. 380 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1875)
Bell v. Farmers' Bank
74 Ky. 34 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1874)
Stanton v. Miller
65 Barb. 58 (New York Supreme Court, 1873)
Stephens v. Rinehart
72 Pa. 434 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1873)
Prutsman v. Baker
30 Wis. 644 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1872)
Hathaway v. . Payne
34 N.Y. 92 (New York Court of Appeals, 1865)
Day v. Griffith
15 Iowa 104 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1863)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Day 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belden-v-carter-conn-1809.