Whitney v. Wheeler

116 Mass. 490, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 21
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 9, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 116 Mass. 490 (Whitney v. Wheeler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Whitney v. Wheeler, 116 Mass. 490, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 21 (Mass. 1875).

Opinion

Wells, J.

Before the recent statutes, securing to married women their separate rights of property, gifts causa mortis from a husband to bis wife were sustained. 2 Redf. Wills, c. 12, § 42, pl. 13. Lawson v. Lawson, 1 P. Wms. 441. Miller v. Miller, 3 P. Wms. 356. Walter v. Hodge, 2 Swanst. 92. The proviso that nothing in those statutes shall authorize the husband to convey or give property to his wife, Gen. Sts. c. 108, § 10, does not operate to render invalid what was before held to be valid.

Gifts mortis causa, like testamentary gifts, express the state of mind and disposition of the donor towards the donee, and his purpose in regard to the bestowal of his estate. When there is any ground for doubt as to the intent with which a delivery of property was made, or whether in fact its possession was obtained by delivery as a voluntary gift or in some other mode, evidence tending to show a continuous and apparently fixed state of mind and purpose, inconsistent with such alleged gift, existing previously thereto, may have a legitimate bearing upon the case to affect the inferences to be drawn from the facts and circumstances attending the transaction.

The precise state of the testimony in this case is not disclosed upon the bill of exceptions. It appears merely that “ the defendant claimed and introduced evidence tending to show ” that the bond “had been given to her by her husband ” “as a donatio causa mortis ; ” and that the plaintiff “ claimed and introduced evidence tending to show that no such gift was ever made.” In this position of the case, we see nothing to justify the exclusion of evidence offered to show the existence of a state of mind and purpose in the supposed donor inconsistent with the alleged gift.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

Mitts v. Williams
29 N.W.2d 841 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1947)
Nolan v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
61 N.E.2d 876 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1945)
Malone v. Walsh
53 N.E.2d 126 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Sloan v. Sloan
32 S.W.2d 513 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Fender v. Foust
265 P. 15 (Montana Supreme Court, 1928)
McLoughlin v. Sheehan
145 N.E. 259 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Pease v. Jennings
146 N.W. 260 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1914)
Gordon v. Munn
125 P. 1 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1912)
Dayton Spice-Mills Co. v. Sloan
68 N.W. 1040 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)
Skillman v. Wiegand
54 N.J. Eq. 198 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1896)
Commonwealth v. Trefethen
31 N.E. 961 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Lane v. Moore
23 N.E. 828 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)
Sherman v. Sherman
39 N.W. 232 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1888)
Scott v. Berkshire County Savings Bank
2 N.E. 925 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)
Marshall v. Jaquith
134 Mass. 138 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1883)
Whitwell v. Winslow
132 Mass. 307 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 Mass. 490, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitney-v-wheeler-mass-1875.