Sloin v. Lavine

168 A. 849, 11 N.J. Misc. 899, 1933 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 49
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedNovember 15, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 168 A. 849 (Sloin v. Lavine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sloin v. Lavine, 168 A. 849, 11 N.J. Misc. 899, 1933 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 49 (N.J. 1933).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant Miss Levine and plaintiff were engaged to marry. He gave her an engagement ring and certain other presents of minor value. They quarreled, the engagement was broken off, and he brought replevin for what he had given her. The court awarded her the other presents and him the ring, and she appeals. The grounds of appeal are: (1) refusal to nonsuit; (2) awarding ring to plaintiff instead of to defendant.

The motion to nonsuit was on two grounds:

(a) That the evidence failed to show the plaintiff’s right to possession of the property.

(b) That the evidence showed the gifts were absolute.

It is now urged for appellant that no demand prior to suit was proved. The appellee’s brief states that this demand was stipulated to have been made, but the state of the case fails to show any such stipulation. However, the point was not made on the motion to nonsuit or elsewhere in the case so far as appears, and appellant is barred from taking it now. Woodward v. Harden, 102 N. J. L. 31; 131 Atl. Rep. 62; Franklin v. Millville, 98 N. J. L. 262; 119 Atl. Rep. 29; [900]*900Allen v. Paterson, 99 N. J. L. 489; 128 Atl. Rep. 884; Glinsky v. Sennert, 111 N. J. L. 285, 287; 168 Atl. Rep. 264.

So we have on the merits the simple case of an engagement ring and engagement broken and ring not returned. The decisions are not numerous, but we follow those holding what we deem the correct rule, viz., that such a gift is impliedly conditional, and must be returned, particularly when the engagement is broken by the donee, as the court was entitled to find in this case. Williamson v. Johnson (Vt.) 20 Atl. Rep. 279; Jacobs v. Davis (1917), 2 K. B. 532; Cohen v. Sellar (1926), 1 Id. 536; Beck v. Cohen, 262 N. Y. Supp. 716.

The judgment will be affirmed.

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

Related

Fowler v. Perry
830 N.E.2d 97 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2005)
Winer v. Winer
575 A.2d 518 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1990)
Aronow v. Silver
538 A.2d 851 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1987)
Mandelbaum v. Weiss
77 A.2d 493 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1950)
Albanese v. Indelicato
51 A.2d 110 (U.S. District Court, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 A. 849, 11 N.J. Misc. 899, 1933 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sloin-v-lavine-nj-1933.