Frazier v. Perkins

62 N.H. 69
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1882·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Carpenter, J.

The money was as much the gift of the plaintiff as if he had delivered it to O. with his own hand. No element necessary to make it a completely executed gift was wanting. It was beneficial to the children, and their acceptance is presumed. Hurd v. Silsby, 10 N. H. 110; Peavey v. Tilton, 18 N. H. 151; Fellows v. Greenleaf, 43 N. H. 421; Johnson v. Farley, 45 N. H. 505. The plaintiff’s suggestion that the money be deposited in a particular way was advisory, and not a condition or limitation of the gift.

Exceptions overruled.

Allen, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Frazier v. Perkins, 62 N.H. 69 (N.H. 1882).

62 N.H. 69 (Frazier v. Perkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lynch v. La Fonte
37 F. Supp. 499 (S.D. California, 1941)
Whitney v. Hale
30 A. 417 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1892)