From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Daws v. Drusilla Home

Court of Appeals of Indiana
May 24, 1948
118 Ind. App. 639 (Ind. Ct. App. 1948)

Opinion

No. 17,678.

Filed May 24, 1948. Rehearing denied October 1, 1948. Transfer denied December 21, 1948.

1. GIFTS — Inter Vivos — Nature of the Gift — Elements. — A gift inter vivos is a gift between the living, which is perfected and becomes absolute during the lifetime of the parties. It operates, if at all, in the donor's lifetime, immediately and irrevocably. p. 642.

2. GIFTS — Inter Vivos — Nature of the Gift — Executed Gift Not Contingent. — A gift inter vivos is a gift executed, and no further act of the parties and no other contingency, such as death, is necessary to give it effect. p. 642.

3. GIFTS — Inter Vivos — Gifts of Corporate Stock — Evidence — Weight and Sufficiency. — Where evidence disclosed that stockholder gave a friend an envelope containing stock certificates and a purported power of attorney in favor of the friend with instructions to deliver it to granddaughter after stockholder's death, but with statement that she was keeping the stock in her name so as to draw the dividends, such evidence was sufficient to sustain trial court's finding that there was no present, executed gift. p. 642.

4. GIFTS — Inter Vivos — Gifts of Corporate Stock — Evidence — Weight and Sufficiency. — The fact that alleged donor reserved the dividends on the stock during her lifetime would not defeat an executed gift otherwise valid, but such reservation is nevertheless an indication that the transfer was not intended to take effect until after her death. p. 642.

5. GIFTS — Inter Vivos — Gifts of Corporate Stock — Statutory Requirements to Transfer Title — Failure to Comply — Gift Cannot Vest. — Where stockholder, who appeared on face of certificate to be the owner, merely gave the certificate and power of attorney with instructions to deliver it to granddaughter upon stockholder's death, and did not indorse the certificate nor execute a written assignment as required by statute, title to the certificate and to the shares represented thereby could not immediately vest in the granddaughter. Burns' 1933, § 25-701, et seq. p. 642.

6. GIFTS — Inter Vivos — Gifts of Corporate Stock — Transfer After Death — Power of Attorney to Make the Transfer is Nugatory. — Where a stockholder executes a power of attorney in favor of a friend and delivers it together with certificate representing shares of stock to such friend with instructions to transfer it to granddaughter upon death of stockholder, such power of attorney is wholly nugatory since the friend under the circumstances could not act until the death of the stockholder and the power would die with her. p. 642.

From the Jefferson Circuit Court; Harry E. Nichols, Judge.

Action between Helen Louise Daws and Drusilla Home, The Madison Safe Deposit and Trust Company, Administrator of the Estate of Catherine G. Klein, deceased, to determine their rights in certain shares of corporate stock. From judgment in favor of Drusilla Home and another, Helen Louise Daws appeals.

Affirmed. By the court in banc.

Julius C. Travis, of Indianapolis, and Arthur D. Cutler, of Madison, attorneys for appellant.

Donald R. Bear, of Madison, attorney for appellees.


Drusilla Home in Madison, Indiana, is a non-profit corporation organized and maintained for the purpose of providing a home for elderly women. In September, 1941, Catherine G. Klein entered the home after paying the admission fee and signing an agreement to convey to the home all property then owned or thereafter acquired by her.

In July, 1941, before entering or applying for admission to the home, she put a certificate representing 40 shares of General Motors stock then owned by her and issued in her name, in an envelope, together with a note written and signed by her which reads: "I Catherine G. Klein give Mame E. Brisbo power of attorney to transfer this Gen. Motors Stock to my granddaughter Helen Louise Golden." On the outside of the envelope she wrote her own name. She handed the sealed envelope to Mrs. Brisbo, an old friend with whom she was then living, and told Mrs. Brisbo the envelope contained General Motors stock and that she wanted Mrs. Brisbo to hand it over to her granddaughter, Helen Louise Golden (now Daws) when she was gone. She further told Mrs. Brisbo she was keeping the stock in her own name "so as to get the interest to use."

Mrs. Klein lived and was cared for in the home until she died there intestate in September, 1945. She saw Mrs. Brisbo frequently but never requested that the envelope be returned to her. It was placed in Mrs. Brisbo's safety deposit box and remained there until Mrs. Klein died, and it was then handed to Mrs. Daws. Mrs. Klein left no parent or child nor any grandchild except Mrs. Daws. Mrs. Klein continued to regularly receive the dividends on the stock and use them as her own until the time of her death. The home had no information concerning the stock until after Mrs. Klein died.

This contest is between the appellant granddaughter and the appellee home, each claiming to be entitled to the stock. The trial court found in favor of the home.

Obviously, a determination of the ownership of the stock on the date of the agreement between Mrs. Klein and the home will fix the rights of the parties. The granddaughter claims by gift inter vivos.

A gift inter vivos is a gift between the living. It is perfected and becomes absolute during the lifetime of the parties. It operates, if at all, in the donor's 1, 2. lifetime, immediately and irrevocably. It is a gift executed, and no further act of the parties and no other contingency, such as death, is necessary to give it effect. 24 Am. Jur., Gifts, § 4, p. 732; 38 C.J.S., Gifts, § 3, p. 781; Bulen v. Pendleton Banking Co. (1948), ante, p. 217, 78 N.E.2d 449.

We think the evidence sufficient to sustain the trial court in concluding that although Mrs. Klein unquestionably wished her granddaughter to have the certificate when she died, 3, 4. there was no present, executed gift. Mrs. Klein apparently retained the right to the possession and control of the envelope and its contents up to the time of her death. The fact that she put her own name on the envelope, instead of that of her granddaughter, would indicate that she intended the stock to be redelivered to herself and not to her granddaughter in the event Mrs. Brisbo passed away before Mrs. Klein died. The fact that the dividends on the stock were reserved to Mrs. Klein during her lifetime by the arrangement she made, would not defeat an executed gift otherwise valid, Grant Trust, etc., Co. v. Tucker (1912), 49 Ind. App. 345, 96 N.E. 487, but that circumstance is nevertheless an indication that the transfer was not intended to take effect until after her death. First Nat. Bank in Dallas v. Commissioner of Int. Rev. (1930), 45 F.2d 509, certiorari denied 283 U.S. 845, 51 S.Ct. 492, 75 L.Ed. 1454.

Under the Uniform Stock Transfer Act, Burns' 1933, § 25-701 et seq., the title to the certificate and to the shares represented thereby could not have immediately vested in the 5, 6. granddaughter. Mrs. Klein, who appeared on the face of the certificate to be the owner of the shares represented thereby, did not indorse the certificate in any way. Neither did she execute nor deliver, with the certificate, a separate document containing a written assignment of it to her granddaughter, or in blank. She did enclose a paper purporting to empower Mrs. Brisbo to transfer the shares to her granddaughter, but that paper was wholly nugatory, for under the circumstances attending its delivery to Mrs. Brisbo the latter could not act under it during the lifetime of Mrs. Klein, and of course Mrs. Brisbo could not act under it after Mrs. Klein died, for the power died with her.

Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.

NOTE. — Reported in 79 N.E.2d 420.


Summaries of

Daws v. Drusilla Home

Court of Appeals of Indiana
May 24, 1948
118 Ind. App. 639 (Ind. Ct. App. 1948)
Case details for

Daws v. Drusilla Home

Case Details

Full title:DAWS v. DRUSILLA HOME, ET AL

Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana

Date published: May 24, 1948

Citations

118 Ind. App. 639 (Ind. Ct. App. 1948)
79 N.E.2d 420

Citing Cases

State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Ind. Acc. Com

We submit the above principles would support the commission in so applying the proximate cause doctrine as to…

Robison v. Fickle

Hayes v. Lewis, supra; Bunt v. Fairbanks (1967), 81 S. Dak. 255, 134 N.W.2d 1; Allender v. Allender (1952),…