Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/51

Harvard Law Review. Published monthly, during the Academic Year, by Harvard Law Students. SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, $2.50 PER ANNUM 35 CENTS PER NUMBER. Editorial Board. Oliver Prescott, Jr., . . . Editor-in-Chief. Philip S. Abbot, Treasurer, Richmond O. Aulick, Albert S. Bard, Albert E. Hadlock, Evan H. Hopkins, Carleton Hunneman, Frederick B. Jacobs, M. Day Kimball, James G. King, James M. Newell, William F. Pillsbury. Gift of a Chose in Action. — That a court of equity will not support an imperfect gift as a declaration of trust, and that a valid gift of a chose in possession can be effected only by deed, or by a delivery of the chattel, are now established doctrines in England and in this country. The American rule as to the requisites of a gift of sealed obligations and mercantile specialties is also simple and uniform. There must be a transfer, either by deed or by delivery, of the docu- ment containing the obligation. A transfer in either mode passes the title to the document, as distinguished from the chose in action, and carries with it an irrevocable power of attorney to the transferee to collect the claim in the name of the obligee, but for his own use. This rule has been applied to bonds, notes, policies of insurance, certificates of stock, savings-bank books, lottery tickets, and the like. In England, however, until recently, it has seemed impossible to deduce any satisfactory rule from the conflicting decisions. In Edwards v. Jones, i M. & Cr. 226, which was followed in Searh v. Law, 15 Sim. 95, and cited with approval in Re Richardson, 30 Ch. Div. 396, 401, 404, the gift of a bond was deemed ineffectual, although the bond was delivered and bore an indorsement, signed by the donor, and expressing the usual power of attorney to sue. In Bizzey v. Flight, 24 W. R. 957, also, a donee gained no interest in a certificate of stock, although the transfer was by deed containing a power of attorney. On the other hand, gifts of a policy of insurance (Fortescue v. Barnett, 3 M. & K. 36 ; Sewell v. King, 14 Ch. D. 179) and of a promissory note (Richardson v. Richardson, 3 Eq. 686) have been up- held, the gift being by deed with a power of attorney. The case of In re Patrick (189 1), 1 Ch. 82, goes far to remove this inconsistency in the English decisions. A donor, who made a volun- tary assignment of certain specialty debts by a deed containing a power of attorney, but who afterwards collected the debts, was compelled to account to the donee for the money so collected. Edwards v. Jones and Bizzey v. Flight must therefore be regarded as overruled. In view of this late decision, it seems not unreasonable to expect that the English courts may see their way to dispense with an express power