314 P.2d 302 | Colo. | 1957
delivered, the opinion .of the Court.
The parties are here as they appeared below. :-Plaintiff in error, Nell S. Coxwell, also known as Nell S. Cox-well Trachta, will be referred to as plaintiff; defendant in error, Liane Forster as executrix of the estate:, of Alexius M. Forster, deceased, will be referred to as defendant; The Columbia Savings and- Loan Association will be referred to as the Association; and Alexius M. Forster, deceased, as the deceased.
Plaintiff, on April 18, 1955, filed her complaint alleging that deceased, on or about March 7, 1954, delivered to Mrs: Peggy Colvin a pass book of the Association showing a deposit of $4,000.00, with oral -directions to her of such a nature as to amount to a gift inter vivos to the plaintiff. Plaintiff prayed that the pass book be delivered to her and the account credited to her. The Association interpleaded, disclaimed - any interest, and awaited the determination of the court.
Defendant answered denying a gift inter vivos or otherwise, and pleaded estoppel in that she had been given no knowledge of such claim until March 29, 1955, to her detriment.
Trial was to a jury. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s case the trial court granted - defendant’s motion to dismiss, and entered judgment for defendant. To review the judgment plaintiff is here on -writ of error. The only substantial question is whether there was ■ prima facie evidence sufficient to establish'a gift inter-vivos.
Upon the trial plaintiff was disqualified under the so-called “dead man’s statute” from testifying in her own behalf. No-objection is made to-'the propriety of this exclusion. Plaintiff’s major witness was:-'.Mrs. Peggy Colvin who testified that a couple of days before deceased was stricken he asked her to go with him to the Association to draw out the money to' send to plaintiff; that she could not go with him that day because of her
On cross-examination Mrs. Colvin testified that after deceased first requested her to go with him to the Association to withdraw the money, and before he was taken to the hospital, she drove him in Colorado Springs on two occasions and was within twenty-five or fifty feet of the Association’s offices where she picked him up to.take him back to his room in her apartment house where he lived; that on these two occasions his health was “perfect”; that on one occasion after he had been hospitalized and when he had asked about the money she suggested that he wait until he returned home because he was then getting better. After the death of deceased the pass book was delivered to an attorney along with other items of personal property.
For reversal of the judgment it is contended that plaintiff had made a prima facie case by the showing that deceased had intended to make a gift to her and “had delivered the symbol of the gift’.’ to a third person for the benefit of plaintiff; and that the court erred in excluding testimony pertaining to conversations with the deceased which were had prior to 1941 and in excluding a letter written by the deceased in December of 1956.
The trial court in granting the motion to.dismiss
The requirements for a valid gift inter vivos are that there be a clear and unmistakable intent on the part of the donor to make the gift; that the gift go into immediate and present effect and be fully executed; that the intent be consummated by an actual, constructive or symbolical delivery of the subject matter of the gift by the donor or by someone in his behalf, to the donee or to someone in behalf of such donee; that the delivery be accompanied by the surrender of all dominion-or control over the gift by the donor; and that there be an acceptance by the donee, although this is usually presumed. Johnson v. Hilliard, 113 Colo. 548, 160 P. (2d) 386; Falbo v. U. S. National Bank, 116 Colo. 508, 181 P. (2d) 1020, and cases cited. The trial court did not err in holding that the evidence offered by plaintiff was insufficient to make a prima facie case.
The foregoing is decisive of the issues in this case and makes it unnecessary to give consideration to the question of whether Mrs. Colvin was acting as the agent of the deceased or as trustee for plaintiff.
The evidence which was excluded by the trial court, even if admitted, could not possibly strengthen the position of plaintiff, and the action of the court in sustaining
The judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Sutton not participating.