Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Murphy lived in Paris during the 1920s and counted among his contemporaries, Picasso, Hemmingway, and Fitzgerald. Murphy was a serious painter, and since his death in 1964 his paintings have become very valuable. In 1964, Murphy brought his painting entitled Cocktail to the Washington, DC apartment of Barry, an old and dear friend of the family. According to testimony, Murphy contemplated that Barry would use and enjoy the painting as long as she liked but that it would ultimately be returned to the family. Barry maintains that the painting was a gift. The painting has remained in her possession, and she has loaned it to various museums. In October 1978, Barry wrote Honoria Donnelley so that she could get confirmation that the painting was a gift from Murphy. Donnelly replied that it was her understanding that it was gift and that for estate purposes that this understanding should be put in writing. Honoria’s position was based on the fact that Murphy wanted to give the painting to her son and that around that time, Barry even tagged the painting with instructions: give to Honoria for John Donnelly. Barry wrote once again in 1979, insisting that the painting was a gift. Honoria then claims it was not until 1983 that she learned that Barry would not return the painting. Barry (P) filed suit to seek a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. 2201 to resolve this controversy. P wanted to have a declaration that the painting was a gift or that the statute of limitations had run in Virginia for recovering property. Summary judgment was given to P; the letter of October 1978 was an act inconsistent with the asserted bailment, and that triggered the running of the Virginia statute of limitations. The court ruled that P’s promise to return the painting in the future was just that and not fraud, and thus the statute was not tolled. D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co