Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

54 Me. 445

Carleton v. Lovejoy

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 1, 1867

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1867-07-01

ON EXCEPTIONS from JSRsi JPrius. Trover for tho value of numerous articles of household furniture and dress, including a brass fire-set belonging to the plaintiff and borrowed of her by the defendant’s former wife in her lifetime.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1924

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1867-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

AppletoN, C. J.

¶1This is an action of trover for various articles of personal property particularly described in the writ. The plaintiff claims title thereto under an alleged gift of the same from her sister, the wife of the defendant, made shortly before her decease.

¶2The goods in controversy consist principally of articles of household furniture and of dress.. They were purchased by the wife before marriage, or since with the funds of her husband.

¶3The marriage took place before the passage of auy Act conferring rights upon or removing the disabilities of married women. The title to the property in dispute must be determined by the rules of tho common law, as existing before they were changed or modified by statute.

¶4By the common law, the personal property of the wife, in possession at the time of the marriage, in her own right, such as money, goods and chattels, and moveables, vested immediately and absolutely in the husband upon such marriage. 2 Kent, 143. The defendant is not shown to have parted with his title. His wife, then, had nothing to give.

¶5If it were otherwise, a delivery is necessary to constitute a valid and effective gift, whether inter vivos or causa mortis. Without actual or constructive delivery, the title *447does not vest. The owner must part with all present and future dominion over the properly. Marston v. Marston, 1 Foster, 491; Dole v. Lincoln, 31 Maine, 422; Allen v. Polereczky, 31 Maine, 338. The proof fails to show any valid gift. The gift must be complete. Jones v. Lock, 1 Law Rep. Chy. Ap., 24. "To constitute a title of this kind,” remarks Sargent, J., in Cutting v. Gilman, 41 N. H., 151, "under a gift causa mortis, the donor must not only give, but he must deliver, and the delivery must bo actual when the subject matter of the gift is capable of actual transfer.”

¶6It is in evidence that the wife of the defendant borrowed a fire-set of the plaintiff. When, it does not appear. The fire-set came rightfully into the defendant’s possession. No demand upon him for the property is shown. No act of conversion by him is established.

¶7Exceptions overruled. —Wonsuit to stand.

CijtxiNG, Walton, Dickerson, Barrows and Taplby, JJ., concurred.
/54/me/445 · .json · Public domain