Whipple v. Barton

3 A. 922, 63 N.H. 613
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided December 5, 1885·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Carpenter, J.

It is unnecessary to consider the effect of U. S. Rev. St., s. 5485. To establish a gift from a client to his attorney, in whatever form the question may arise, it is incumbent upon the latter to show affirmatively not only that it is voluntary, but also that it is made with full knowledge on the part of the client *614 of all material facts known to the attorney, and that it is not brought about by any undue influence, either actively exerted or arising from the relation between them. The presumption is against its validity. Nesbit v. Lockman, 34 N. Y. 167; Whitehead v. Kennedy, 69 N. Y. 462; Cowee v. Cornell, 76 N. Y. 99; St. Leger’s Appeal, 34 Conn. 435; Newman v. Payne, 2 Ves., Jr., 200; Gibson v. Jeyes, 6 Ves., Jr., 278; Wood v. Downes, 18 Ves., Jr., 120; Savery v. King, 5 H. L. Ca. 627; 1 Sto. Eq. Jur., ss. 310-312. No preponderance of evidence being found in favor of the defendant,, the plaintiff prevails.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Blodgett, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Whipple v. Barton, 3 A. 922, 63 N.H. 613 (N.H. 1885).

3 A. 922 (Whipple v. Barton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Connolly's Case
508 A.2d 1054 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1986)
In Re Schuyler
434 N.E.2d 1137 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1982)
Sampliner v. Motion Picture Patents Co.
255 F. 242 (Second Circuit, 1918)
June v. Willis
30 F. 11 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York, 1887)