Dickinson v. Hoes

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Dickinson v. Hoes

84 N.Y.S. 152

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 152 (Dickinson v. Hoes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dickinson v. Hoes, 84 N.Y.S. 152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

PRYOR, Referee.

Van Slooten v. Dodge, 145 N. Y. 327, 39 N. E. 950, not cited by counsel, occurs to the referee as possibly fatal to the validity of this proceeding. But in that case the gift was inter vivos, and, taking effect during the lifetime of the decedent, could not constitute a claim against him or his estate. But here is a gift mortis causa, which, not being effectual until the death of the donor, is an apparent asset in the hands of his administrator, and is so claimed by him. Williams v. Guile, 117 N. Y. 343, 348, 22 N. E. 1071, 6 L. R. A. 366; In re Crosby (Sur.) 20 N. Y. Supp. 62. I conclude that the order of reference is not a nullity, and that I may proceed to determine the matter in controversy. Code Civ. Proc. § 2718. John Kealey being sole distributee of his mother’s estate, and no debts existing against it, he had a right to appropriate it without administration. Blood v. Kane, 130 N. Y. 514, 29 N. E. 994, [154]*15415 L. R. A. 490; In re Mullon’s Estate, 145 N. Y. 104, 39 N. E. 821; Barlow v. Myers, 24 Hun, 286, 290; Blood v. Kane, 15 L. R. A. 493, note.

It appears by a preponderance of proof that John Kealey meant to make the gift; that he was capable of forming such intention; that he made the gift in apprehension of death; that he died of the malady with which he was then afflicted; that he perfected the gift by due delivery; and that the donee accepted the gift. That the gift was perfected by the delivery of the receipt and agreement is an adjudged proposition. Elam v. Keen, 4 Leigh, 333, 26 Am. Dec. 322. The efficacy of the gift is not impaired by the fact that it was only of the residue of the fund, after payment for the burials. Pod-more v. Savings Institution, 48 App. Div. 218, 62 N. Y. Supp. 961; Loucks v. Johnson, 70 Hun, 565, 24 N. Y. Supp. 267. Nor is the gift invalidated because the concurrence of the surety company was indispensable to the possession of the fund. Gilkinson v. Third Ave. R. R., 47 App. Div. 472, 63 N. Y. Supp. 792; Page v. Lewis, 15 S. E. 389, 18 L. R. A. 170, 180, 37 Am. St. Rep. 848.

The conclusion is that the judgment must be for the plaintiff.

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

PRYOR, Referee.

Van Slooten v. Dodge, 145 N. Y. 327, 39 N. E. 950, not cited by counsel, occurs to the referee as possibly fatal to the validity of this proceeding. But in that case the gift was inter vivos, and, taking effect during the lifetime of the decedent, could not constitute a claim against him or his estate. But here is a gift mortis causa, which, not being effectual until the death of the donor, is an apparent asset in the hands of his administrator, and is so claimed by him. Williams v. Guile, 117 N. Y. 343, 348, 22 N. E. 1071, 6 L. R. A. 366; In re Crosby (Sur.) 20 N. Y. Supp. 62. I conclude that the order of reference is not a nullity, and that I may proceed to determine the matter in controversy. Code Civ. Proc. § 2718. John Kealey being sole distributee of his mother’s estate, and no debts existing against it, he had a right to appropriate it without administration. Blood v. Kane, 130 N. Y. 514, 29 N. E. 994, [154]*15415 L. R. A. 490; In re Mullon’s Estate, 145 N. Y. 104, 39 N. E. 821; Barlow v. Myers, 24 Hun, 286, 290; Blood v. Kane, 15 L. R. A. 493, note.

It appears by a preponderance of proof that John Kealey meant to make the gift; that he was capable of forming such intention; that he made the gift in apprehension of death; that he died of the malady with which he was then afflicted; that he perfected the gift by due delivery; and that the donee accepted the gift. That the gift was perfected by the delivery of the receipt and agreement is an adjudged proposition. Elam v. Keen, 4 Leigh, 333, 26 Am. Dec. 322. The efficacy of the gift is not impaired by the fact that it was only of the residue of the fund, after payment for the burials. Pod-more v. Savings Institution, 48 App. Div. 218, 62 N. Y. Supp. 961; Loucks v. Johnson, 70 Hun, 565, 24 N. Y. Supp. 267. Nor is the gift invalidated because the concurrence of the surety company was indispensable to the possession of the fund. Gilkinson v. Third Ave. R. R., 47 App. Div. 472, 63 N. Y. Supp. 792; Page v. Lewis, 15 S. E. 389, 18 L. R. A. 170, 180, 37 Am. St. Rep. 848.

The conclusion is that the judgment must be for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickinson-v-hoes-nyappterm-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack