## Facts

- A diamond was bought by Robert Bloomsburg for his wife and given to her with permission to have it set; it was later set in a ring for Robert, who wore it until his death in 1899.
- On his deathbed, Robert gave the ring to his wife and stated it was his last gift to her; if she did not need to sell it for food, it was to pass through designated family members (including the complainant and then the complainant’s daughter).
- The ring later came into the complainant’s possession, and she claimed ownership through a gift from her mother.
- The complainant loaned the ring to her brother, George Bloomsburg; a written receipt allegedly reflected that the ring would return to the family upon his death.
- George later died, and his widow (the defendant) kept the ring, claiming title under George’s will devising the ring to her.
- The complainant filed a bill in equity seeking return of the ring itself, alleging it had special family and sentimental value making legal damages inadequate.

## Issues

1. Whether equity may order delivery of a specific chattel when the item has special or sentimental value and damages at law are inadequate.
2. Whether the complainant was barred from testifying about transactions or communications with the decedent when the defendant, a devisee, was sued as owner of the chattel under the will.
3. Whether the complainant proved superior ownership to defeat the defendant’s claim under the decedent’s testamentary devise.

## Decision

- The court entered a decree for the complainant and ordered the defendant to surrender and deliver the ring.
- The court held it had equitable jurisdiction to compel delivery in specie of personal property wrongfully detained when legal relief would not provide an adequate substitute.
- The court held the “dead man’s” evidentiary bar did not apply because the defendant devisee was sued in her own right as alleged owner, not in a representative capacity.
- On the merits, the court found the complainant’s title derived from family gifts and understanding, and the brother’s possession was consistent with a loan rather than absolute ownership; thus his will could not defeat the complainant’s prior rights.

## Legal Principles

- Equity may enforce surrender and delivery of specific chattels tortiously obtained or wrongfully detained when there is no adequate remedy at law.
- If the claimant has effectively fixed a recoverable value for the chattel such that money damages would fully compensate, the remedy is ordinarily at law rather than in equity.
- A chattel’s “peculiar,” unique, or sentimental value—such as that of a family heirloom—can make damages inadequate and support specific recovery.
- In an action asserting equitable rights to chattels against devisees who claim ownership under a will, testimony about transactions with the decedent is not barred when the devisees are sued as owners in their individual capacity rather than as estate representatives.

## Conclusion

The Court of Chancery granted equitable relief ordering return of a family diamond ring because its sentimental value made damages inadequate, and it allowed testimony concerning the decedent’s dealings because the devisee-defendant was sued as an individual owner rather than in a representative capacity.


Burr v. Bloomsburg, 101 N.J. Eq. 615 (N.J. Ch. 1927)