¶1I do not concur in the conclusion reached by the majority of the court. There is no doubt as to the principles of law applicable to the question involved. Delivery must be proved in *26order to constitute a gift inter vivos, but the fact of delivery may be proved by circumstances. After a painstaking examination ot the record in this case, it seems to me that a jury would have been justified, from all the facts and circumstances disclosed in the evidence, in finding that the bond in question became the property of Mrs. Gray before her husband’s death by a gift to her from him completed by delivery.
111 Me. 21
Gray v. Gray
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided July 17, 1913
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1913-07-17
On report. This is an action of trover by the executor of the last will and testament of Lewis F. Gray and against Etta F. Gray, testator’s widow, to recover damages for the alleged conversion of a bond for one thousand dollars of the Lewiston, Augusta and Waterville Street Railway Company, and alleged to be of the value of one thousand dollars, gold coin of the value of one hundred and fifty dollars, and bank 'bills, gold and silver certificates of the value of sixty-five…
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1936
3 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Judgment for the plaintiff · Decided 1913-07-17
View the full empirical analysis of this case →