Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Maria E. Brind, then the wife of P addressed to Trust (D) jewelry and a letter stating that if she died from a serious surgical operation for the removal of a tumor, D was to turn over each piece of jewelry as a gift causa mortis to the person for whom it is mentioned. D received the document and the gifts and agreed to act thereunder. At the time of the death of Maria, the property was still in the possession of D. Maria did not die from the surgery as the surgeon did not proceed. D went to a hospital in Denver for the purpose of the operation, and an incision was made by the surgeon in charge of the case, and such a condition discovered as convinced him that the contemplated operation could only result in Maria’s death, whereupon the wound made by the incision was sewed up. P contends since his wife did not die as a result of the contemplated operation; the gift is invalid, and the property must be returned to him, as administrator. Ds contend that Maria did dies as a result of the operation and that prior to her death, she reaffirmed the gifts and never demanded the return of the property. Maria knew her condition was fatal. Maria’s attorney had also visited her after her release from the hospital and advised her should could change the disposition of her jewelry. At that time, Maria was quite ill but was confused as to what to do. The attorney re-visited the content of the D document and reminded her that she had not died immediately after the operation, and was still living, that there might possibly be some question about the validity of the gift.' The jury held that the property was a valid gift causa mortis. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co