Webb v. Webb

5 Citing cases

  1. Streber v. Commissioner

    70 T.C.M. 1604 (U.S.T.C. 1995)

    The court stated: "We see no reason why the fact of delivery could not be as well proved by a declaration as the fact of gift itself, or any other fact about which a party had made a declaration against his own interest." Id. at 292; see also Estate of Bridges v. Mosebrook, 662 S.W.2d 116, 121 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983) (with regard to delivery of certificates of stock: "Actual delivery is not always necessary; rather, where the circumstances make actual delivery impractical, delivery may be symbolical or constructive."); Webb v. Webb, 184 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Tex. Civ. App. 1944) (similar). The fact of delivery of an interest in a chose in action, such as Parker obtained by way of the earnest money contracts, can be proved by declarations alone.

  2. Estate of Bridges v. Mosebrook

    662 S.W.2d 116 (Tex. App. 1983)   Cited 10 times
    Providing that possession of a share certificate is not essential to ownership of shares or to the exercise of shareholder's rights.

    What will constitute delivery depends upon the nature of the corpus and the circumstances of the case. Webb v. Webb, 184 S.W.2d 153, 156-57 (Tex.Civ.App. — Eastland 1944, writ ref'd). Actual delivery is not always necessary; rather, where the circumstances make actual delivery impractical, delivery may be symbolical or constructive. Webb, supra, at 156.

  3. Wohlenberg v. Wohlenberg

    485 S.W.2d 342 (Tex. Civ. App. 1972)   Cited 7 times
    Describing inception-of-title doctrine as "emphatically applied to life insurance policies"

    00 as belonging to the wife's separate estate. Teague et al. v. Fairchild et al., 15 S.W.2d 585 (Tex.Com.App. 1929); Webb v. Webb et al., 184 S.W.2d 153 (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland 1944, writ ref'd). An identical fact situation exists as to a savings account opened by the husband in the wife's name at the First State Bank on January 29, 1965, with an initial deposit made by him of $1,000.00.

  4. Sansing v. Wells

    243 S.W.2d 254 (Tex. Civ. App. 1951)   Cited 1 times

    ell, Tex.Civ.App., 217 S.W.2d 78, 81; Lord v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 95 Tex. 216, 66 S.W. 290, 56 A.L.R. 596; Chevallier v. Wilson, 1 Tex. 161; Hill v. Escort, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 487, 86 S.W. 367; Brown v. Fore, Tex.Com.App., 12 S.W.2d 114 and 117, 63 A.L.R. 435; American Juris., Vol. 24, Gifts, Sec. 134, p. 799; Braun v. Brown, 14 Cal.2d 346, 94 P.2d 348, 127 A.L.R. 773. 2. Hunt v. Garrett, Tex.Civ.App., 275 S.W. 96, 104 and Tex.Com.App., 283 S.W. 489; Webb v. Webb, Tex.Civ.App., 184 S.W.2d 156 (writ refused); McGrede v. Rembert Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 580 (writ dismissed, judgment correct); Ellsworth v. Ellsworth, Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 628 (writ refused); Article 3998 of Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes of Texas; Hill v. Escort, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 487, 86 S.W. 367; Weems v. First Nat. Bank, of Winnsboro, Tex.Civ.App., 234 S.W. 931; Schauer v. Von Schauer, Tex.Civ.App., 138 S.W. 145; Brown v. Fore, Tex.Com.App., 12 S.W.2d 114, 63 A.L.R. 435; Webb v. Webb, Tex.Civ.App., 184 S.W.2d 153 (writ refused); Bunnell v. Bunnell, Tex.Civ.App., 217 S.W.2d 78; Coke Reardon v. Ikard, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 409, 87 S.W. 869 (writ refused); Hunt v. Garrett, Tex.Civ.App., 275 S.W. 96 (reversed on other grounds), and Tex.Com.App., 283 S.W. 489; Hughes v. Sloan, Tex.Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 194 (writ refused); Cowen v. First Nat. Bank, 94 Tex. 547, 63 S.W. 532, 533; Vol. 24, American Juris., Title, 'Gifts', Sections 27 and 28. The appellee, upon the other hand, defends the court's judgment, so rendered in his favor, and, after declaring 'that appellant alleged, and the evidence showed, that deceased, the alleged donor, delivered to appellant only one of two keys to the safe-deposit box rented by deceased, instead of both keys,' presented these two counter-points:

  5. Gullo v. City of W. Univ. Place

    214 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Civ. App. 1948)   Cited 2 times

    "(1) In a case tried before the Court without a jury, where no Findings are requested, the Appellate Court will presume that the Trial Court found all issues favorably to the prevailing parties. Janes Contracting Co. v. Home Life Accident Co., Tex.Com.App., 260 S.W. 839: (2) An Appellate Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party in whose favor the judgment was rendered, and rejects all evidence favorable to the opposite contention, and considers only the facts and circumstances which would tend to sustain the Trial Court's findings. Webb v. Webb, Tex. Civ. App. 184 S.W.2d 153, writ refused."