Witt v. Witt

D.C. Circuit

Witt v. Witt

182 F.2d 250, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 408, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2771

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 8, 1950

Docket10392_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 182 F.2d 250 (Witt v. Witt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Witt v. Witt, 182 F.2d 250, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 408, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2771 (D.C. Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.

This controversy involves the beneficial ownership of a promissory note made payable to “Ewald Witt and Alta Witt,” the parties to this appeal. They were then husband and wife. Appellant makes claim to the whole note and seeks a resulting trust in his favor. Appellee admits that the note covers money of appellant loaned to the makers, but contends that it was made payable to both her and appellant at his direction, to effectuate a gift by him to her. They are now divorced. She has actual possession of the note and claims co-ownership thereof.

The district court, after trial, found from the evidence that appellant made a gift to appellee, with sufficient delivery^ investing her with title to a one-half interest in the note, including principal and interest, citing Kosters v. Hoover, 1938, 69 App.D.C. 66, 69, 98 F.2d 595; Ciffo v. Ciffo, 1915, 44 App.D.C. 217, 223, in support of its conclusions. Accordingly the court refused to impress the note with a resulting trust in appellant’s favor.

The appendix contains none of the evidence before the trial judge. We must therefore assume that it was sufficient to support his findings. Upon the basis of those findings, we agree with the trial judge that there was a consummated and effectual gift to appellee of a one-half interest in the note, and that she is a co-owner thereof. Accordingly the judgment is

Affirmed.

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

PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.

This controversy involves the beneficial ownership of a promissory note made payable to “Ewald Witt and Alta Witt,” the parties to this appeal. They were then husband and wife. Appellant makes claim to the whole note and seeks a resulting trust in his favor. Appellee admits that the note covers money of appellant loaned to the makers, but contends that it was made payable to both her and appellant at his direction, to effectuate a gift by him to her. They are now divorced. She has actual possession of the note and claims co-ownership thereof.

The district court, after trial, found from the evidence that appellant made a gift to appellee, with sufficient delivery^ investing her with title to a one-half interest in the note, including principal and interest, citing Kosters v. Hoover, 1938, 69 App.D.C. 66, 69, 98 F.2d 595; Ciffo v. Ciffo, 1915, 44 App.D.C. 217, 223, in support of its conclusions. Accordingly the court refused to impress the note with a resulting trust in appellant’s favor.

The appendix contains none of the evidence before the trial judge. We must therefore assume that it was sufficient to support his findings. Upon the basis of those findings, we agree with the trial judge that there was a consummated and effectual gift to appellee of a one-half interest in the note, and that she is a co-owner thereof. Accordingly the judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 F.2d 250, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 408, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/witt-v-witt-cadc-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack