Pink v. Church

14 N.Y.S. 337, 38 N.Y. St. Rep. 735, 60 Hun 580, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1979
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 11, 1891·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Pratt, J.

The proof is decisive that the deceased regarded plaintiff as his-son, had brought him up as such, intended to provide for his future as for that of a son, and had put aside the bonds in suit as such a provision for him. The only question is whether he succeeded in so putting his intentions into acts that the law can carry them into effect. An examination of the testimony shows that he informed the plaintiff of his intention to give him the bonds, told him where they were deposited, and gave him the key by which to gain possession of them. The jury were charged that if the key was given with intent to transfer a present title to the bonds, it effected the purpose. There can be noquestion of the correctness of the law thus laid down. There are no questions that require discussion, and the verdict is fully sustained by the testimony. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Pink v. Church, 14 N.Y.S. 337, 38 N.Y. St. Rep. 735, 60 Hun 580, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1979 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

14 N.Y.S. 337 (Pink v. Church) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Foster v. Reiss
112 A.2d 553 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1955)
In re the Estate of Delapenha
176 Misc. 732 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1941)
Hynes v. White
190 P. 836 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
In re the Estate of Adler
107 Misc. 574 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1919)
Newsome v. Allen
151 P. 111 (Washington Supreme Court, 1915)
Killian v. Heinzerling
114 A.D. 410 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1906)