{
  "id": 8656234,
  "name": "LELIA A. PATTERSON, by Her Next Friend, v. THE GREENSBORO LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Patterson v. Greensboro Loan & Trust Co.",
  "decision_date": "1911-11-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "13",
  "last_page": "16",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "157 N.C. 13"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "72 N. C., 176",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8689003
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/72/0176-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N. C., 361",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8694010
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/24/0361-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 N. C., 499",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650675
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/96/0499-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N. C., 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660427
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/122/0524-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N. C., 747",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661662
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/122/0747-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 N. C., 674",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661511
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/126/0674-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 N. C., 604",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660595
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/132/0604-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 N. C., 176",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8689003
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/72/0176-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 378,
    "char_count": 6306,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.439,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2862203702924048e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6187436024262418
    },
    "sha256": "79e911a8bec08073977b19f7c694421fda610bcbb134f0d829cef5b57266a92f",
    "simhash": "1:b60a46766a68659b",
    "word_count": 1157
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:03.195282+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LELIA A. PATTERSON, by Her Next Friend, v. THE GREENSBORO LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ho ice, J.\nTbe authorities in tbis State are in full support of tbe position contended for by defendant, that in order to a valid gift of personal projierty there must, be an actual or constructive delivery with tbe present intent to pass tbe title. Gross v. Smith, 132 N. C., 604; Duckworth v. Orr, 126 N. C., 674; Wilson v. Featherston, 122 N. C., 747; Newman v. Bost, 122 N. C., 524; Medlock v. Powell, 96 N. C., 499; Adams v. Hayes, 24 N. C., 361.\nTbe Court is of opinion, however, that without any impairment of tbe principle recognized and sustained in these cases, there \u00e1re facts in evidence from which delivery could be properly inferred by tbe jury. From tbe testimony of tbe principal witness it appeared that Delia A. Patterson is tbe daughter of Roxie Patterson and tbe granddaughter of William Collins; -that William Collins died on 6 April, 1907, and that tbe wife of 'William Collins, grandmother of Lelia, died about eighteen years ago; that the grandmother of Lelia had given Roxie Patterson a trunk for Lelia, and that the trunk was always called and used as Lelia\u2019s, and remained in an upstairs room in the Collins home until after the death of the grandmother; that in the summer after the birth of Lelia, while Roxie Patterson and child were on a visit to the grandparents, the mother showed the grandfather a $5 gold-piece which she said.Judge Armfield had given to her for the child, whereupon the grandfather remarked, \u201cWell, we will keep that up. I will keep that up. I expect to give her $5 in gold every 22d of the month for her birthday.\u201d He then and there began the practice of putting into the child\u2019s trunk $5 in gold every month, and after the death of the grandmother the trunk was brought down into his room. On several visits of the mother she saw the grandfather put $5 in gold into it when the monthly birthday of Lelia happened at the time. Some of Lelia\u2019s things were in the trunk, that is to say, shoes, little hose, dresses, and things of that kind.\u201d Lelia\u2019s pet name was Hon, and in the grandfather\u2019s last illness he said to his daughter: \u201cThere\u2019s Hon\u2019s trunk; I want you to move it; you may move this trunk now, if you want to, or you can wait and move it after I am dead.\u201d The trunk was not then removed, and after his death it was opened and the sum of $1,050 in gold was found therein. There is no evidence that the trunk contained anything of value belonging to the deceased, that is, there was no other money in gold, nor were there any valuable papers.\n. True, there is a case in our reports, Brewer v. Harvy, 72 N. C., 176, where a father standing on his piazza with his wife and child, a girl 12 years of age, pointed to a colt some distance off and said to the child, \u201cThat is yours; I give it to you,\u201d and in another ease a colt on the father\u2019s farm, was always recognized by and spoken of as his son\u2019s colt and the father had told the son he might have the colt if he would raise it. In both, the Court held there was not a valid gift for lack of proper delivery; but in both, it will be noted, there was no possession or control of the property given to the alleged donee or to any one for him. In our ease the money was from time to time put by the intestate in the trunk recognized as the child\u2019s trunk, and in the last illness of the donor he said to the child\u2019s mother, the trunk being present: \u201cThere\u2019s Hon\u2019s trunk; I want you to move it; you may move it now, if you want to, or you can wait and move it after I am dead.\u201d On this testimony we think his Honor correctly ruled that the question of delivery was for the jury. The case comes rather within the principle applied in Newman v. Bost, supra, in which it was held: \u201cWhere the articles are present and are capable of actual manual delivery, such delivery must be made in order to constitute a gift inter vivos or causa mortis; but where the intention of the donor to make the gift plainly appe\u00e1rs and the articles intended to be given are not present, or, if present, are incapable of manual delivery, effect will be given to a constructive delivery.\u201d\nThere is no error, and the judgment for plaintiff must be affirmed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ho ice, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John A. Barringer and Thomas M. Calvert for plamtiff.",
      "G. S. Bradshaw and King & Kimball for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LELIA A. PATTERSON, by Her Next Friend, v. THE GREENSBORO LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY.\n(Filed 15 November, 1911.)\n1. Gift \u2014 Delivery\u2014Intent, Expressed or Implied.\nTo sustain,a valid gift of personal property there must be an actual or constructive delivery with the present intent to pass title.'\n2. Same \u2014 Evidence\u2014Donee\u2019s Trunk.\nIn an action involving the question of a gift to a granddaughter of personalty by the grandfather, there was evidence tending to show that the grandmother had given her a trunk, always.spoken of as hers and which remained at the home of the grandparents; that while the donee and her mother were visiting there, soon after her birth, the grandmother showed the grandfather a $5 gold-piece which had been given to the donee by another, whereupon the grandfather said: \u201cWell, we will keep that up. I will keep it up. I expect to give her $5 in gold every 22d of the month for her birthday\u201d; that he did so on several such occasions ; that in the last illness of the grandfather he told donee\u2019s mother to move the trunk. \u201cI want you to move it; you may move this trunk now, if you want, to, or you can wait and move it after I am dead,\u201d the trunk being thez-e present; that the grandmother died about eighteen years ago and the grandfather in 1907; that the trunk was removed after the grandfather\u2019s death, and when opened contained $1,050 in gold, only a few small clothes formerly worn by the donee, and nothing of real value of the donor\u2019s: Held, sufficient evidence of a gift of the $1,050 in gold. Brewer v. Scurvy', 72 N. C., 176, cited and distinguished ; Newman v. Bost, 122 N. O., 524, cited and applied.\nAppeal from Daniels, J., at April Term, 1911, of Guilfobb.\nCivil action to recover $1,050 in gold, alleged to have been given to plaintiff by ber grandfather, tbe intestate.\nTbe jury rendered tbe following verdict: \u201cDid tbe intestate of tbe defendant give Delia A. Patterson, during bis lifetime, tbe $1,050, as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: Yes.\u201d\nJudgment on tbe verdict, and tbe defendants excepted and appealed.\nJohn A. Barringer and Thomas M. Calvert for plamtiff.\nG. S. Bradshaw and King & Kimball for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0013-01",
  "first_page_order": 53,
  "last_page_order": 56
}