Pearson v. Pearson

7 Johns. 26
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1810
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 7 Johns. 26 (Pearson v. Pearson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pearson v. Pearson, 7 Johns. 26 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1810).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The validity of the note cannot be supported upon the ground taken at the trial, of its being a gift; for a gift is not consummate and perfect, until a delivery of the thing promised ; and until then the party may revoke his promise. A parol promise to pay money, as' a gift, is no more a ground of action, than a promise to deliver a chattel, as a gift. It is the delivery which makes the gift valid. Donatio perficitur possessione accipientis. (Noble v. Smith, 2 Johns. Rep. 52.) The ^question then was upon the delivery and consideration ¡of the note; for if there was no consideration for the note, it was a nude pact, and void as between the original parties to it. This is the true point in issue, and without giving any opinion upon it, to the prejudice of a future inquiry, a new trial' is awarded, with costs to abide the event of the suit.

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

Related

In re the Estate of Dobson
8 Mills Surr. 308 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1911)
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Flagg
1 Mills Surr. 77 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1899)
Flanders v. Blandy
45 Ohio St. (N.S.) 108 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1887)
Timayenis v. Union Mutual Life Ins.
21 F. 223 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1884)
Trustees of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church v. Hardenbergh
48 How. Pr. 414 (New York Supreme Court, 1874)
Same v. Same
29 Iowa 557 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1870)
Crawford v. Lockwood
9 How. Pr. 547 (New York Supreme Court, 1854)
Harris v. . Clark
3 N.Y. 93 (New York Court of Appeals, 1849)
Loomis v. Cline
4 Barb. 453 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)
Carpenter ex rel. Carlton v. Dodge
20 Vt. 595 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1848)
Craig v. Craig
3 Barb. Ch. 76 (New York Court of Chancery, 1848)
Lee v. Luther
15 F. Cas. 211 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island, 1847)
Stewart v. Trustees of Hamilton College
2 Denio 403 (New York Supreme Court, 1845)
Thayer v. Thayer
14 Vt. 107 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1842)
McClintick v. Johnston
15 F. Cas. 1274 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, 1839)
Adamson v. Lamb
3 Blackf. 446 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1834)
Horn v. Fuller
6 N.H. 511 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1834)
Caines v. Marley
10 Tenn. 582 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1831)
Blakely v. Hampton
14 S.C.L. 469 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1826)
Bowers v. Hurd
10 Mass. 427 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1813)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Johns. 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearson-v-pearson-nysupct-1810.