Opinion
(Fall Riding, 1802.)
Where a grantor, after signing a deed, left it on the table, where it remained all night, and the next morning took it up and put it away, it was held that this was not a delivery.
BILL to compel defendant to deliver up a paper, purporting to be a deed given by their testator, the father of defendant, to him for lands, directed by his will to be sold by his executors, for that the said paper was not the deed of the father. The testimony rendered it very probable that the father had signed the deed, but the proof of delivery which was offered was that, after signing it, he left it on the table, where it remained all night, and in the morning was taken up and put away by the father.
The cases cited to prove this a delivery do not come up to what is wished. This is not a delivery in law, and I believe, from the circumstances, was not so intended by the father. He knew a deed without delivery was not effectual; but his children, who were dissatisfied at the prospect of his marrying again, did not know it, and the old man adopted this mode of procuring his peace.
Decree according to the prayer of the bill.
NOTE. — See Kirk v. Turner, 16 N.C. 14; Vanhook v. Barnett, 15 N.C. 268; Tate v. Tate, 21 N.C. 22; Moore v. Collins, 15 N.C. 384; Gibson v. Partee, 19 N.C. 530; Clayton v. Liverman, 20 N.C. 238; Waddell v. Hewitt, 36 N.C. 475.