Kimball v. Leland

110 Mass. 325
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 110 Mass. 325 (Kimball v. Leland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kimball v. Leland, 110 Mass. 325 (Mass. 1872).

Opinion

Wells, J.

Under the instructions given to the jury, their verdict must be taken to have established the fact that the order and bank book were delivered to the plaintiff by Grace Brown, in her lifetime, “for the purpose of transferring the money to her.”

It is objected that this did not operate as a present transfer of the deposit; and that it must fail to have that effect, because the power thus given to make it complete by a transfer at the bank or by drawing the money was not exercised during the life of Grace Brown. The answer to this is that the interest of Grace Brown was not in any specific money, but was a mere credit, represented by her bank book. The delivery of that, with an order for payment of the whole amount represented by it", completely divested Grace Brown of all her interest, without any further action to give it effect. Kingman v. Perkins, 105 Mass. 111. The transferee was at liberty to take her own time for giving such notice to the bank as would protect her rights against payment to others than herself. Her conduct in this respect, the request to keep the matter secret, and all the other circumstances relied on by the defendant, were matters for the jury upon the question of fact submitted to them. They do not bear upon the question of law presented here.

The defendant’s offer to prove statements made by Grace Brown after the delivery of the book and order to the plaintiff, “ inconsistent with the transaction as testified to by Mrs. Kim-ball,” was rightly refused. Nothing is better settled than the rule that a grantor or assignor cannot defeat his own deed or assignment by declarations made after it has taken effect.

There being no creditors whose rights could be affected by it, Cue transfer was equally effectual, whether it was a gift without consideration, or made for a legal consideration. The argument of the defendant, upon all tne points of the ease, is based upon the idea that the order was a mere power, or at most an executory contract, having no effect, except as between the parties, [328]*328antil presented and acted upon. But we think it clear that it must be regarded as an instrument of assignment, complete and effectual to transfer the interest of Grace Brown upon the delivery thereof with the bank book to which it related.

Judgment on the verdict..

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

Related

Barboza v. McLeod
447 Mass. 468 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2006)
Desrosiers v. Germain
429 N.E.2d 385 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1981)
DePasqua v. Bergstedt
247 N.E.2d 354 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1969)
Hirning v. Webb
419 P.2d 671 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1966)
Keshner v. Keshner
26 N.E.2d 529 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1940)
Milan v. Boucher
285 Mass. 590 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Medford Trust Co. v. McKnight
184 N.E. 681 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Fender v. Foust
265 P. 15 (Montana Supreme Court, 1928)
Gruszka v. Mitchell Street State Bank
200 N.W. 680 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1925)
Stebbins v. North Adams Trust Co.
136 N.E. 880 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Brannan v. Eliot Five Cents Savings Bank
98 N.E. 572 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Arthur v. Arthur
126 N.W. 550 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1910)
In re Wilson
3 D. Haw. 537 (D. Hawaii, 1910)
Varley v. Sims
111 N.W. 269 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1907)
Hill v. Escort
86 S.W. 367 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1905)
Phinney v. State ex rel. Stratton
68 L.R.A. 119 (Washington Supreme Court, 1904)
Jacobs v. Jolley
62 N.E. 1028 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1902)
Wetherow v. Lord
41 A.D. 413 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Larrabee v. Hascall
34 A. 408 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1896)
McCarthy v. Provident Institution for Savings
34 N.E. 1073 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 Mass. 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimball-v-leland-mass-1872.