Richardson v. Richardson
Citations
- 148 Ill. 563
- 26 L.R.A. 305
Syllabus
<p>1. Gift—inter vivos—what necessary to constitute. In order that a gift inter vivos be valid there must be an intention on the part of the giver, and a delivery of the gift to or for the donee in pursuance of such intention, and also an acceptance. An intention on the part of the donor that the gift shall go into immediate and absolute effect is essential. The mere fact of a delivery and acceptance, or permission to take, followed by possession, is not, of itself, sufficient to establish a gift, as they may be equally consistent with a loan or sale.</p> <p>2. Same—intention. The intention of the parties, as well as the acts done, is necessary in determining the character of the transaction, and the right to a gift largely depends on the meaning and intention of the donor, as gathered from all the circumstances of the case.</p> <p>3. The delivery of money by a husband to his wife is consistent with an intention that she shall keep and take care of it for him, and it is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the possession of chattel property in the wife from possession in the husband. It is therefore especially necessary in gifts between husband and wife that the evidence of intention should be clear.</p> <p>4. Same—revocation—promissory note. A gift is always revocable until it is executed, and a promissory note intended purely as a gift to the payee is but a promise to make a gift in the future. The gift is not executed until the note is paid.</p> <p>5. Statute of Frauds—parol ante-nuptial agreement. A parol ante-nuptial agreement is void under the Statute of Frauds, and the marriage is not sufficient to take such an agreement out of the operation of the statute.</p> <p>6. Promissory note—consideration. A promissory note by a husband to his wife, made in pursuance of a verbal ante-nuptial agreement, which is void under the Statute of Frauds, is without consideration.</p> <p>7. Same—by husband to his wife. A promissory note from a husband to his wife,
Judges: Wilkin
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Meyer v. MeyerIllinois Supreme Court· 1942-01-20· cited 22×
- Keady v. WhiteIllinois Supreme Court· 1897-11-01· cited 18×
- In Re Estate of StahlAppellate Court of Illinois· 1973-07-27· cited 16×
- Jones v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Vermont· 1920-03-20· cited 13×
- Fischer v. DolwigNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1918-02-09· cited 11×
- Teel v. HarlanSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1947-10-14· cited 9×
- Martin v. MartinAppellate Court of Illinois· 1900-04-10· cited 8×
- Brinson v. HerlongSupreme Court of Florida· 1935-11-04· cited 6×
- Shriver v. DanbyCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1919-03-18· cited 6×
- Taylor v. HarmisonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1898-12-02· cited 6×
- Cook v. LewisAppellate Court of Illinois· 1912-10-03· cited 6×
- Cutwright v. Preachers' Aid SocietyAppellate Court of Illinois· 1933-05-29· cited 6×
- Little City Foundation v. Capsonic Group, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1992-06-25· cited 4×
- Hendrie v. HendrieFifth Circuit· 1938-02-04· cited 4×
- Mader v. CoolIndiana Court of Appeals· 1896-01-31· cited 3×
- Cusack v. CusackAppellate Court of Illinois· 1929-05-29· cited 3×
- Huston v. HustonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1943-05-27· cited 3×
- Armstrong v. ArmstrongAppellate Court of Illinois· 1908-04-21· cited 2×
- Anglemire v. Policemen's Benevolent Ass'nAppellate Court of Illinois· 1939-09-22· cited 2×
- Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. HoyE.D. Illinois· 1959-05-14· cited 1×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.