Moore v. Giles

49 Conn. 570
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedJanuary 15, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 49 Conn. 570 (Moore v. Giles) 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
Moore v. Giles, 49 Conn. 570 (Colo. 1882).

Opinion

Pardee, J.

It is essential to the validity of a deed that it should be delivered by the grantor and accepted by the grantee; but neither the presence of the latter nor his previous authority to a third person to receive it on his behalf, nor his subsequent express assent to it, is necessary to make the delivery valid. When there is no such previous authority to receive the law presumes his assent whenever the deed is beneficial to Mm, although his dissent may be proven. Proof only that the plaintiff recorded the deed is not ■ conclusive against him. The legal effect of that act depends upon the intent with which he performed it; and that is purely a question of fact. The court finds that influenced by fear of a creditor, as well as by affection for the grantee, “ with the intent and purpose of giving to the said Martha Giles his title to said land, the plaintiff executed said deed and caused the same to be recorded; ” a finding, in language not to be misunderstood, that he delivered the deed for record to the town clerk with the intent thereby and then to divest himself of all title to the land. This act, .with this intent, concludes Mm. The proven facts [574]*574that a month elapsed between the execution and delivery of the deed to the town clerk, that the grantor did not place it in the hands of the grantee, and that he retained possession of the land, of necessity exhausted their force upon the mind of the court below, and are not to be considered by us.

There is no error in the judgment complained of.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Related

Edwards v. Tierney, No. Cv94-0357475s (Feb. 16, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 1331-EEEE (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Dalia v. Lawrence
627 A.2d 392 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1993)
Dalia v. Lawrence, No. 295544 (Nov. 19, 1991)
1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 9825 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1991)
D'Addario v. D'addario, No. 256879 (Apr. 24, 1991)
1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3615 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1991)
Sweeney v. Sweeney
11 A.2d 806 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1940)
Hinton's Ex'r v. Hinton's Committee
76 S.W.2d 8 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1934)
King v. Antrim Lumber Co.
1917 OK 589 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1917)
Wiley v. London & Lancashire Fire Insurance
92 A. 678 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1914)
Pitkin's Admrs. v. City of Montpelier
85 Vt. 467 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1912)
Clark v. Creswell
76 A. 579 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1910)
Whiting v. Hoglund
106 N.W. 391 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1906)
Creighton v. Roe
75 N.E. 1073 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1905)
Lewis v. Lewis
57 A. 735 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1904)
Brady v. Huber
64 N.E. 264 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1902)
Humiston v. Preston
34 A. 544 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1895)
Sessions v. Sherwood
44 N.W. 263 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1889)
Munoz v. . Wilson
18 N.E. 855 (New York Court of Appeals, 1888)
Munoz v. Wilson
6 N.Y. St. Rep. 66 (New York Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 Conn. 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-giles-conn-1882.