Whatley v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Whatley v. Mitchell

100 S.E. 229, 24 Ga. App. 174, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 477

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 18, 1919

Docket10163

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 100 S.E. 229 (Whatley v. Mitchell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Whatley v. Mitchell, 100 S.E. 229, 24 Ga. App. 174, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 477 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. While delivery is essential to a valid gift of personalty, actual manual delivery is not required. The mere fact that the donee of personalty allows possession of the property to remain with the donor, will not necessarily defeat the gift. Accordingly, where the evidence shows that a grandfather, whose grandchild lived in the house with him, had stated that he had given to such grandchild a certain heifer, and the heifer continued to remain on the premises and in the lot of the donor where both the donor and the donee resided, the donee and his wife working for the donor, such evidence is sufficient to authorize the inference that the subject-matter of the alleged gift was delivered to the donee, aaid that the donor parted with his title and relinquished all dominion and ownership over the property, thereby constituting a valid gift.

2. For the reasons above stated the exception to the-charge of the court contained in the sole special ground of the motion for a new trial is without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. While delivery is essential to a valid gift of personalty, actual manual delivery is not required. The mere fact that the donee of personalty allows possession of the property to remain with the donor, will not necessarily defeat the gift. Accordingly, where the evidence shows that a grandfather, whose grandchild lived in the house with him, had stated that he had given to such grandchild a certain heifer, and the heifer continued to remain on the premises and in the lot of the donor where both the donor and the donee resided, the donee and his wife working for the donor, such evidence is sufficient to authorize the inference that the subject-matter of the alleged gift was delivered to the donee, aaid that the donor parted with his title and relinquished all dominion and ownership over the property, thereby constituting a valid gift.

2. For the reasons above stated the exception to the-charge of the court contained in the sole special ground of the motion for a new trial is without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 229, 24 Ga. App. 174, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whatley-v-mitchell-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack