In re Bauernschmidt's Estate

30 Citing cases

  1. Rogers v. Rogers

    271 Md. 603 (Md. 1974)   Cited 25 times
    Involving inter vivos gift and deceased donor and stating: “Where an actual delivery to a donee occurs, a delivery back to the donor, where the donor is acting as the donee's agent for a limited purpose, does not impair the validity of the gift.”

    The appellant argues that Solomon Rogers retained a locus poenitentiae, or a "dominion over the subject of the gift" or an ability to "undo what he has done." In re Bauernschmidt's Estate, 97 Md. 35, 59, 54 A. 637 (1903); Pope v. Safe Dep. Tr. Co., 163 Md. 239, 249, 161 A. 404 (1932). We disagree.

  2. Cartall v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.

    153 S.W.2d 370 (Mo. 1941)   Cited 22 times

    Albrecht v. Slater, 233 S.W. 8; Campbell v. Sech, 155 Mich. 634, 119 N.W. 922; Fouts v. Nance, 55 Okla. 266, 155 P. 610; Thomas v. Riley, 147 Ala. 189, 41 So. 854; Atchley v. Rimmer, 148 Tenn. 303, 255 S.W. 366; Collins v. Mande, 144 Cal. 289, 177 P. 945; Short v. Patton, 79 W. Va. 179, 90 S.E. 598; Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co., 132 Ohio St. 21, 4 N.E.2d 917; In re Brown's Estate, 130 Misc. 865, 226 N.Y.S. 1; Casey v. Topliffe, 80 F.2d 543; Chambers et ux. v. McCrerry, 106 F. 364. (b) The other evidence in the record is insufficient to show one of the necessary requisites of a gift, namely, a delivery of the securities to plaintiff-respondent. Albrecht v. Slater, 233 S.W. 8; Trautz v. Lemp, 329 Mo. 580, 46 S.W.2d 135; Bauernschmidt v. Bauerschmidt, 97 Md. 35, 54 A. 637; Dingley v. Robinson, 149 Wn. 301, 270 P. 1018; Mitchell v. Weaver, 242 Mass. 331, 136 N.E. 166; Dodson v. Matthews, 22 Tenn. App. 49, 117 S.W.2d 969; Andreas v. Andreas, 84 N.J. Eq. 368, 94 A. 417; Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co., 132 Ohio St. 21, 4 N.E.2d 917; Casey v. Topliffe, 80 F.2d 543. (c) The evidence is insufficient to show another essential element of a valid gift, to-wit, that plaintiff-respondent accepted the securities. Albrecht v. Slater, 233 S.W. 8; Gottstein v. Hedges, 210 Iowa 272, 228 N.W. 93. (d) Nor can the judgment or decree appealed from be affirmed upon the theory that Otto M. Cartall, during his life, created a trust in the securities under determination here for the use and benefit of plaintiff-respondent because the record and the evidence fails to support such a theory.

  3. Pope v. Safe Dep. Tr. Co.

    163 Md. 239 (Md. 1932)   Cited 28 times
    In Pope v. Safe Dep. Tr. Co., 163 Md. 239, 243, 161 A. 404, 405 (1932), the settlor of a trust reserved the net income for life and a power to appoint "to the use of such person or persons" as he designated in his will.

    Notwithstanding this agreement, there is no doubt that subsequently the husband could create a tenancy in entirety in personalty owned by himself absolutely by a gift to his wife. Brewer v. Bowersox, 92 Md. 567, 40 A. 1060; In re Bauernschmidt's Estate, 97 Md. 35, 54 A. 637. Nor is there any question that a trust of personal property might have been created by parol. Stone v. National City Bank, 126 Md. 231, 94 A. 657. But such loose, vague, and indefinite expressions as are on this record are insufficient to establish either a gift or a trust.

  4. Bauernschmidt v. Bauernschmidt

    101 Md. 148 (Md. 1905)   Cited 11 times

    PEARCE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court No. 2, of Baltimore City, ratifying Account A and rejecting Account B, filed by the auditor in the case of Frederick and William Bauernschmidt v. Margaretha Bauernschmidt, Executrix of George Bauernschmidt, deceased, et al., which was before this Court at the January Term, 1903, and which is reported in 97 Md. 35, under the title, " In re Bauernschmidt's Estate." It will facilitate the understanding and disposition of the questions involved here, to state as concisely as may be, the purpose and scope of the bill and the conclusions reached by the Court in the former case.

  5. Harvey v. Stowe

    219 F. 17 (9th Cir. 1914)   Cited 1 times

    Nor do we think that he so intended to affect her title, nor in any way to withdraw or modify his primary purpose of giving her the stock; nor is it a fact established in any way that Mrs. Harvey held the stock subject to Harvey's dictation or control. It is true, as is said in Bauernschmidt v. Bauernschmidt, 54 A. 637-643: 'There can be no gift which the law will recognize where there is reserved to the donor, either expressly or as a result of the circumstances and conditions attending the transaction, a power of revocation or a dominion over the subject of the gift.

  6. Kafka v. Hess

    CIVIL NO. JKB-16-1757 (D. Md. Jun. 6, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    When Smith granted the remainder interest in the Property to Kafka in 2009, she could not later convey the same interest to Hess in 2011. See In re Bauernschmidt's Estate, 54 A. 637, 645 (Md. 1903) ("A deed may be good in part. When it purports to convey that which the grantor had no authority to convey as well as to transfer that which he could transfer, it will be good as to the latter though inoperative as to the former.").

  7. In re Bell-Breslin

    283 B.R. 834 (Bankr. D. Md. 2002)   Cited 9 times

    There cannot be reserved to the donor a locus poenitentiae, which is the power to revoke the gift or the dominion over the subject matter of the gift. Rogers v. Rogers, 271 Md. 603, 319 A.2d 119 (1974); Snyder v. Stouffer, 270 Md. 647, 313 A.2d 497 (1974); In re Bauernschmidt's Estate, 97 Md. 35, 54 A. 637 (1903). Boehm v. Harrington, 54 Md.App. 345, 354, 458 A.2d 885 (1983).

  8. Coffey v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    1 T.C. 579 (U.S.T.C. 1943)   Cited 10 times

    The ‘delivery‘ must be as perfect as the nature of the property and the circumstances and surroundings of the parties will reasonably permit. * * * In Harvey v. Stowe, 219 Fed. 17; 241 U.S. 199, the following was quoted from Bauernschmidt v. Bauernschmidt, 54 Atl. 637, 643: There can be no gift which the law will recognize where there is reserved to the donor, either expressly or as a result of the circumstances and conditions attending the transaction, a power of revocation or a dominion over the subject of the gift.

  9. Matter of Estate of Stinchcomb

    1983 OK 120 (Okla. 1983)   Cited 28 times
    Noting that when "gift is chose in action . . . delivery must be of a variety of which it is most capable"

    The court noted that the courts of other jurisdictions have also decided that renting a lockbox in a bank in the names of two or more persons, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship does not on the death of one vest the personal property in the box in the survivor. Accord, Bauerschmidt v. Bauerschmidt, 97 Md. 35, 54 A. 637 (1903). We therefore hold that absent an express agreement that the contents of a safe deposit box shall be joint property, a joint lease in and of itself alone, does not create a joint tenancy in the contents of the box.

  10. Hartt v. Brimmer Bible

    287 P.2d 638 (Wyo. 1955)   Cited 11 times
    Emphasizing importance of express intention in creation of a joint tenancy in contents of a safe deposit box

    "We think it would be a proposition which would somewhat astonish the renters of boxes in safe-deposit companies, if it should be held that, when two combine to rent a safe, the presumption would be that there was a joint ownership in all the property contained therein, even though the names of the renters were disjunctively associated." In the case of Bauernschmidt v. Bauernschmidt, 79 Md. 35, 54 A. 637, 638, 643, 644, a safe deposit box was rented by husband and wife under the following agreement: "We agree to hire and hold safe No. 4,392, or any safe for which it might be exchanged, as joint tenants, the survivor or survivors to have access thereto in case of death of either."