Wright v. Wright

1 Cow. 598
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1823
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 1 Cow. 598 (Wright v. Wright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wright v. Wright, 1 Cow. 598 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1823).

Opinion

Curia.

It is clearly inferable, from the facts, as presented, that the note was a donatio causa mortis ; and the case , is, in this respect, distinguishable from the one cited. The testator made his will in his last sickness, and gave the note to his brother, without consideration, to be sure, but in expectation of dissolution. The only question which can arise is, whether a promissory note is the subject of a donatio causa mortis ; for there is always a tacit condition annexed to these gifts, that the donor die. To constitute a valid donatio causa mortis, there must be a delivery of [600]*600chattels. How is it as to choses in action? There are some conflicting authorities upon the question, whether a mere equitable interest can be transferred in this manner, as where the donor delivers a bond payable to himself; and the doubt arises from its being actionable in the name of the donor only. But the interest in a promissory note passes by mere tradition. There is no pretence in this case that the note was not delivered. It takes effect independent of consideration.

Foot, mentioned to the Court, that- he thought this a question of probable cause, merely ; and submitted, whether they would not grant a rule to stay proceedings, with a view to have the questions, involved in the case, more fully examined than they could be upon this motion.

Woodworth, J.

We think the case, as made, is against-you.

Savage, Ch. J.

We entertain no doubt, that the note-was a donatio causa mortis.

Motion denied.'

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

Related

Foley v. Harrison
136 S.W. 354 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1911)
In Re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of James
40 N.E. 876 (New York Court of Appeals, 1895)
Dunn v. German-American Bank
109 Mo. 90 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1891)
Trorlicht v. Weizenecker
1 Mo. App. 482 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1876)
Whitaker v. . Whitaker
52 N.Y. 368 (New York Court of Appeals, 1873)
Flint v. Pattee
33 N.H. 520 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1856)
Jones v. Deyer
16 Ala. 221 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1849)
Smith v. Kittridge
21 Vt. 238 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1849)
Carpenter ex rel. Carlton v. Dodge
20 Vt. 595 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1848)
Holley v. Adams
16 Vt. 206 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1844)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Cow. 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-wright-nysupct-1823.