Grangiac v. Arden

Delivery of possession is essential to constitute a valid gift. Where a father bought a ticket in a lottery, which he declared he gave to his infant daughter B., and wrote her name upon it, and after the ticket had £eaw declared that he hadgito his child E., pr?zehmoney was her’s; this was held suiti&emdash; cient for a jury to infer all the formality requisite to a valid gift, and that the title in the money was complete and vested in K.

THIS was an action for money had and received to the use of the plaintiff, to recover the amount of the money drawn as a prize in a lottery. The cause was tried at the sittings in New-York, in October, 1811, before Mr. Justice Van Ness. It was proved, by A. Herring, one of the managers of the almshouse lottery, that the defendant bought several tickets in that lottery, one of which, number 7,470, drew a prize of 5,000 dollars, which he paid to the defendant, about the year 1794, or before 1797. The ticket was lost or destroyed. Soon after the prize was drawn, the witness congratulated the defendant on his good fortune, and the defendant replied “ that the ticket did not belong to him; that he had given it to his daughter.” Other witnesses testified to a similar acknowledgment of the defendant, at different times. It was also proved, by a witness who lived in the family of the defendant, that the defendant brought home six lottery tickets, which he said were for himself, and wife, and his four children, an(j he wrote the names of each on the tickets, and put them in his desk. The children were not present at the time. The defend afterwards being congratulated on his good fortune, by Mr. II-, said, the ticket belonged to bis daughter Elisa, (the plaintiff.) In a subsequent conversation in fhe family, the son. of the defendant said that Elisa ought to divide the prize with the others, to which the defendant answered, “ No, she should not divide it. The ticket was her own, and the prize money belongs to her, and she shall have • the whole of it, and I will put it in trade for her.” Elisa, the plaintiff, the daughter of the defendant, was about 8 years old when the prize was drawn, and lived in the defendant’s family unfil she married in January, 1809, and the present suit ivas brought in her name and that of her husband,, who has since died. In the month of Way, 1806, her mother, during her illness, reminded the defendant of the plaintiff’s prize money, and requested him to take care of it for her, and the defendant replied, “ You know the ticket was Elisa’s; the money is her’s; and I have kept it in trade for her to a good profit. I will never take a shilling of it or of the profit; she shall have it all.” Mrs. Arden died in 1806. A daughter of the defendant also testified that she had frequently heard her father say, in the presence of the plaintiff, before she was of age and since, that he had given the ticket to the plaintiff» and endorsed her name on it, and that the prize money belonged io her. It did not appear that the plaintiff ever had the ticket in her possession. A motion was made for a nonsuit, which was overruled by the judge. The allowance of interest was also objected to. The different points raised were reserved, and a verdict was taken for 8,000 dollars, subject to the opinion of the court on a case in which the above facts were stated.