2 Johns. 53 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1806
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case presents the following questions. 1. Can property in corn growing, be transferred by gift ? 2. Is there here the requisite evidence of such a gift ?
- After a consideration of this case, I am satisfied- that the opinion which I gave at the circuit, upon the trial of this cause, was incorrect.
Lord Coke is reported to have said, in Wortes v. Clifton, (1 Rol. Rep. 61.) that by the civil law, a gift of goods was not valid without delivery, but that it was otherwise by our law. This is a very inaccurate dictum, and the difference between the two systems is directly the reverse. By the civil law, a gift inter vivos, was valid and binding, without delivery; (Inst. lib. 2. tit. 7. § 2. Code lib. 8. tit. 54. l. 3. l. 35. § 5
Srery, in both kinds of gift, is equally requisite, on s of public policy and convenience, and to prevent mistake and imposition.
The opinion of the court therefore is, that the nonsuit
New trial granted.
But gifts, ainounting- to the value of 200 solidi, were required to be publicly registered at the time. These gifts were also revocable, for ■ ingratitude, or where they deprived the next of kin of his share of the property of the donor, or, if the don- or had children after-wards.
It was subsequently decided iri^fcTohns. Rep. 26. in the case of Pearson v. Pearson, that a gift is not-wnsummated until the delivery ef the thing promised, and until delivery a party may revoke his promise. Quere, whether corn growing is susceptible of delivery in any other way than by putting the donee in possession of the land ? ■