Veal v Veal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 July 1859 |
| Date | 25 July 1859 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 118
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 29 L. J. Ch. 321; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 527; 2 L. T. 228; 8 W. R. 2. Followed, In re Mead, 1880, 15 Ch. D. 654; Clement v. Cheesman, 1884, 27 Ch. D. 631. See In re Beaumont [1902], 1 Ch. 893.
[303] veal v. veal. July 15, 25, 1859. [S. C. 29 L. J. Ch. 321 ; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 527 ; 2 L. T. 228 ; 8 W. E. 2. Followed, In re Mead, 1880, 15 Ch. D. 654; Clement v. Cheesman, 1884, 27 Ch. D. 631. See In re Beaumont [1902], 1 Ch. 893.] A promissory note, payable to order, may be the subject of a donatio mortis caund, and will pass thereby, though unindorsed. The testatrix, Frances Veal, died on the 29th of March 1858. She possessed two promissory notes for 60 and 120, both of which were in the following form : - "Box, March 17th, 1852. - On demand, I promise to pay to Miss Frances Veal or order the sum of 60, with lawful interest for the same. For value received. " catherine kowe. "elizabeth noble. "60. "thomas noble." Shortly previous to her death, being told by her medical attendant that her complaint would terminate fatally, she delivered over the two promissory notes, unindorsed, to her niece, Mary Maslen, by way, as was alleged, of a donatio mortis causa. Mary Maslen retained them down to the death of the testatrix, and now claimed the amount. 27BEAV. 304. VEAL V. VEAL 119 The validity of this gift was contested on the ground that a promissory note payable to order, and not indorsed, could riot be made the subject of a ilonatio mortis causA. Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. Southgate, for Mary Masleu. The decision of Sir Joseph Jekyll in Miller v. Miller (3 Peere Williams, 356), that a note not payable to bearer could riot be the subject of a donatio -mortis causa, because " no property [304] therein could pass by delivery," and that of Lord Hardwicke in Ward v. Turner (2 Ves. sen. 431), as to receipts for South Sea annuities, took place at a time when the law 011 the subject had not been settled. It was then thought, and it continued to be so considered down to the case of Duffield v. Elwex (1 Sim. & St. 245), that "where delivery will not execute a complete gift inter vims, it cannot create a donatio mortis causd, because it will not prevent the property from vesting in the executors; and as a Court of Equity will not, inter vivas, compel a party to complete his gift, so it will not compel the executor to complete the gift of his testator." Sir John Leach, in that case, held that a mortgage would not pass...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v Walsh
...G. & S. 517. Moore v. MooreELR L. R. 18 Eq. 474. Snellgrove v. BailyENR 3 Atk. 214. Thompson v. Heffernan 4 Dr. & W. 285. Veal v. VealENR 27 Beav. 303. Witt v. AmissENR 1 B. & S. 109. Donatio mortis causa — Deposit receipt. 284 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1895. V.- C. PORTER v. WALSH. (1894. No. 69......
-
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 ......
-
Amis v Witt
...instruments, which were not transferable, could not pass as a donatio mortis causd. DuffieldM. Elwei(l Bl. (N. S.) 497); Veal v. Veal (27 Beav. 303); Barton, v. Gainer (3 Hurl. & N. 307); Moore v. Dartm (4 De G. & Sm. 517), were cited. the master of the eolls [Sir John Eomilly] held that th......
-
Cassidy v The Belfast Banking Company
...Div. Before PALLES, C.B., and ANDREWS,J. (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, 5......