Hale v. Joslin

Feb 27, 1883
Reporters:
,
Before:
Allen
W. Allen, J.

We think the evidence shows that Elijah Hale did not intend ‍​‌​‌​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‍that the deed should be delivered until his death. He did not intend that the plaintiff should have any present interest in the deed, but intended ‍​‌​‌​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‍to keep in himself the dominion and control of it. It was in the hands of Whitney as a depositary for the grantor, and not ‍​‌​‌​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‍as agent or trustee for the grantee. The act was intended to be in the nature of a testamentary act, which could be revoked at ‍​‌​‌​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‍any time. As it was in fact revoked, it is not necessary to consider what effect it would have had if there had been no revocation. Fairbanks v. Metcalf, 8 ‍​‌​‌​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‍Mass. 230, 237. Hatch v. Hatch, 9 Mass. 307. Rockwood v. Wiggin, 16 Gray, 402. McGrath v. Reynolds, 116 Mass. 566. Shurtleff v. Francis, 118 Mass. 154. Wellborn v. Weaver, 17 Ga. 267. Bill dismissed.