- 22 -
as to whether there was a delivery." Id. In Lord v. New York
Life Ins. Co., 66 S.W. 290 (Tex. 1902), the Supreme Court of
Texas dealt with a deceased donor's declaration that an insurance
policy payable to his estate, at his death, in the possession of
a third party, was for his sister. The question before the court
was whether such declaration was sufficient evidence on which to
base a finding of delivery of the insurance policy to her. The
court stated: “We see no reason why the fact of delivery could
not be as well proved by a declaration as the fact of gift
itself, or any other fact about which a party had made a
declaration against his own interest.” Id. at 292; see also
Estate of Bridges v. Mosebrook, 662 S.W.2d 116, 121 (Tex. Ct.
App. 1983) (with regard to delivery of certificates of stock:
"Actual delivery is not always necessary; rather, where the
circumstances make actual delivery impractical, delivery may be
symbolical or constructive."); Webb v. Webb, 184 S.W.2d 153, 156
(Tex. Civ. App. 1944) (similar). The fact of delivery of an
interest in a chose in action, such as Parker obtained by way of
the earnest money contracts, can be proved by declarations alone.
We believe that Parker's declarations to Nathan, Thoner, and
Bradish, as manifest in the January 8 writing are proof of
delivery of a gift to the daughters before the joint venture was
entered into, and we so find.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011