WITT
v.
WITT

D.C. Cir. | 1950-05-08
No. 10392
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, PROCTOR and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
182 F.2d 250 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (1950)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the trial court's finding of a completed gift of a one-half interest in the promissory note was supported by sufficient evidence.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant claimed sole ownership of a promissory note made payable to him and his then-wife, seeking a resulting trust. Appellee, his ex-wife, admitte…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.

PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.

This controversy involves the beneficial ownership of a promissory note made payable to “Ewald Witt and Alta Witt,” the parties to this appeal. They were then husband and wife. Appellant makes claim to the whole note and seeks a resulting trust in his favor. Appellee admits that the note covers money of appellant loaned to the makers, but contends that it was made payable to both her and appellant at his direction, to effectuate a gift by him to her. They are now divorced. She has actual possession of the note and claims co-ownership thereof.

The district court, after trial, found from the evidence that appellant made a gift to appellee, with sufficient delivery^ investing her with title to a one-half interest in the note, including principal and interest, citing Kosters v. Hoover, 1938, 69 App.D.C. 66, 69, 98 F. 2d 595; Ciffo v. Ciffo, 1915, 44 App.D.C. 217, 223, in support of its conclusions. Accordingly the court refused to impress the note with a resulting trust in appellant’s favor. The appendix contains none of the evidence before the trial judge. We must therefore assume that it was sufficient to support his findings. Upon the basis of those findings, we agree with the trial judge that there was a consummated and effectual gift to appellee of a one-half interest in the note, and that she is a co-owner thereof. Accordingly the judgment is

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw