Besson v. Stevens

94 N.J. Eq. 549, 9 Stock. 549
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedMarch 5, 1923
DocketNo. 73; No. 74
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 94 N.J. Eq. 549 (Besson v. Stevens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Besson v. Stevens, 94 N.J. Eq. 549, 9 Stock. 549 (N.J. 1923).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The bills were filed to obtain an adjudication of the ownership of, and title to, certain shares of corporate stock owned by Richard Stevens, deceased, in his lifetime, and claimed by the executors of his will, but which were also claimed, partly by his daughter Elizabeth C. Stevens, Jr., who died pending the litigation, and partly by his daughter Dorothy P. Stevens. Each daughter claimed by virtue of an alleged gift inter vivos from her father, and the fundamental question argued before the vice-chancellor was whether there had been in fact and law such a gift. He held to the contrary in a careful and ■ lengthy opinion in which all the facts (for the most, part, if not altogether, conceded) were fully discussed, and the law applicable thereto stated. The result he reached in both cases was—first, that there was an absence of donative intent, and secondly, that even if- such intent had existed, the evidence failed to show a completed gift under the well-established rules of law governing such cases.

[569]*569We think it sufficient to say that after full argument and due consideration of the matters involved, we concur with the views of the learned vice-chancellor on which he based the conclusion that there was no completed gift, and, of course, in that conclusion and for those reasons the decrees before us will be affirmed. In view of this result, the question of donative intent needs no discussion.

No. 73—

For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Swayze, Teen-chard, Parker, Bergen, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, White, Gardner, Ackerson, Van Buskirk—12.

For reversal—None.

No. 74—

For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, White, Gardner, Ackerson, Van Buskirk—12.

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

Related

Chase Manhattan Bank v. O'CONNOR
197 A.2d 706 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1964)
Estate of Kamm v. Commissioner
1963 T.C. Memo. 344 (U.S. Tax Court, 1963)
Fortugno v. Hudson Manure Co.
144 A.2d 207 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1958)
Manna v. Pirozzi
130 A.2d 55 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1957)
In Re Declaration of Trust by Bush
249 Minn. 36 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1957)
Buffaloe v. . Barnes
38 S.E.2d 222 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
Hanstein v. Kelly
24 A.2d 386 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1942)
Zimmerman v. Nauhauser
183 A. 820 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1936)
Travers v. Reid
182 A. 908 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1936)
Parker v. Colonial Building-Loan Assn.
161 A. 353 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1932)
Pattberg v. Gott
140 A. 795 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 N.J. Eq. 549, 9 Stock. 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/besson-v-stevens-nj-1923.