¶1The validity of the note cannot be supported upon the ground taken at the trial, of its being a gift; for a gift is not consummate and perfect, until a delivery of the thing promised ; and until then the party may revoke his promise. A parol promise to pay money, as' a gift, is no more a ground of action, than a promise to deliver a chattel, as a gift. It is the delivery which makes the gift valid. Donatio perficitur possessione accipientis. (Noble v. Smith, 2 Johns. Rep. 52.) The ^question then was upon the delivery and consideration ¡of the note; for if there was no consideration for the note, it was a nude pact, and void as between the original parties to it. This is the true point in issue, and without giving any opinion upon it, to the prejudice of a future inquiry, a new trial' is awarded, with costs to abide the event of the suit.
7 Johns. 26
Pearson v. Pearson
Decided November 15, 1810
New York Supreme Court · decided 1810-11-15
THIS was an action Of assumpsit. The cause was at the Ontario circuit, in June. 1808, before Mr. Justice Spencer. The plaintiff declared against the defendant, as maker of a promissory note, for 530 dollars, dated 9th December, 1805, payable 15 months after date plea non assumpsit. At the trial, the noté Was proved.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1810-11-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 1911
9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →