Amis v Witt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 1864 |
| Date | 16 November 1864 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 509
ROLLS COURT
See Hewitt v. Kaye, 1868, L. E. 6 Eq. 200. Followed, Moore v. Moore, 1874, L. E. 18 Eq. 474. See In re, Farman, 1887, 57 L. J. Ch. 638. Held, unsatisfactory for want of details, In re Dillon, 1890, 44 Ch. D. 79. For previous proceedings, see S. C. 1 B. & S. 109; 30 L. J. Q. B. 318; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 499; 4 L. T. 283; 9 W. E, 691.
[619] amis v. witt. Nw. 16, 1863. [See Hewitt v. Koye, 1868, L. E. 6 Eq. 200. Followed, Moore v. Moore, 1874, L. E. 18 Eq. 474. See In re, Farman, 1887, 57 L. J. Ch. 638. Held, unsatisfactory for want of details, In re Dillon, 1890, 44 Ch. D. 79. For previous proceedings, see S. C. 1 B. & S. 109; 30 L. J. Q. B. 318 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 499; 4 L. T. 283; 9 W. E, 691.] Money due on a policy and on a banker's deposit note held to pass as donationes mortis causa by the delivery of the policy and note. The Plaintiff David Amis claimed, as against the Defendant Stephen Witt, the administrator of Prisciller Floyd, a policy of assurance of the Kent Mutual Assurance Society for JE1000 on her own life, and a deposit note for 400 of the National Provincial Bank of England, which he alleged the intestate had, on her death-bed, delivered to him, the Plaintiff, by way of donatio mortis eausd. Upon the trial of an action at law the jury gave a verdict for Amis, affirming the donation. The Judge reserved the point whether a policy of assurance and a bank deposit note eould be the subject of a donatio mortis causd, and upon a motion for a new trial the [620] Court of Queen's Bench held they could, and refused to disturb the verdict. (1 Best & Smith, 109.) The cause now came...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duckworth v Lee
...and LEE Appeal. Donatio mortis causa — I O U. An I O U cannot be the subject of a donatio mortis causa. Amis v. WittENR 33 Beav. 619. Beak's EstateELR L. R. 13 Eq. 491. Belfast Banking Co.UNK 22 L. R. Ir. 68. Cain v. MoonELR [1896] 2 Q. B. 283. Cassidy v. Belfast BankUNK 22 L. R. Ir. 68. Cl......
-
Porter v Walsh
...Division V.-C. PORTER and WALSH Amiss v. WittENR 33 Beav. 619. Austin v. MeadELR 15 Ch. D. 651. Cassidy v. Belfast Banking CompanyUNK 22 L. R. Ir. 68. Clement v. CheesmanELR 27 Ch. D. 631. Cosnahan v. GriceENR 15 Moore P. C. 215. Duffield v. ElwesENR 1 Bli. (N. S.) 497. Duffin v. Duffin 44 ......
-
Dunne v Boyd
...C. Court. DUNNE and BOYD. Amis v. WittENR 33 Beav. 619. Moore v. MooreELR L. R. 18 Eq. 474. Veal v. VealENR 27 Beav. 303. Drury v. Smith 1 P. Wil. 405. Woodhams v. The Anglo-Astralian and Universal Family Assurance CompanyENR 3 Giff. 238. Moore v. Darton 4 D. G. & S. 517. Hills v. HillsENR ......
-
Cassidy v The Belfast Banking Company
...(1887B. No.4.) CASSIDY and THE BELFAST BANKING COMPANY Veal v. VealENR 27 Beav. 303 Moore v. DartonENR 4 De G. & S. 517 Amis v. WittENR 33 Beav. 619 Witt v. Amis 1 B.& S. 109 Moore v.MooreELR L. R. 18 Eq. 474 Duffield v. ElwesENR 1 Bli. (N.S.) 497, 534 Clement v.Cheesman 27 ch. Div. 631 Aus......