## Facts

- Abraham S. Yahuda assembled a valuable library of rare books and manuscripts; after his death, his widow, Ethel S. Yahuda, became the library’s owner.
- Ethel discussed donating the library to The Hebrew University Association and, at a public luncheon in Israel, announced she was giving the library to the University.
- She approved a press release stating she had given the library, later referred to it as belonging to the University, and rejected purchase offers on the ground it was not hers.
- She provided the University a memorandum listing the materials; the University set aside space for the collection and acted in reliance on the expected transfer.
- The library remained stored in New Haven, Connecticut; it was not shipped, no consignee was designated, and physical possession did not change before Ethel’s death.
- Ethel died without completing delivery; her will left most of her estate to a different Hebrew charitable institution.
- The executors claimed the library remained part of the estate; the University claimed ownership based on a declaration of trust or a completed gift.

## Issues

1. Whether Ethel’s public and private statements and related conduct constituted an effective oral declaration of trust making her a trustee of the library for the University.
2. Whether an attempted inter vivos gift that failed for lack of delivery may be treated as a trust to avoid the delivery requirement.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the judgment for the University and ordered a new trial.
- The court held that no valid declaration of trust was created because Ethel’s conduct showed donative intent, not an intent to assume enforceable trustee duties.
- The court held an imperfect gift for lack of delivery will not be converted into a trust merely because delivery was missing.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of whether the evidence could support a gift theory such as constructive delivery.

## Legal Principles

- An oral declaration of trust requires a manifested intention to impose on the settlor enforceable duties of a trust nature; donative intent alone is insufficient.
- Courts will not recharacterize an inter vivos gift that fails for lack of delivery as a declaration of trust to “save” the transfer.
- Inter vivos gifts generally require intent, acceptance, and delivery; absent delivery, ownership does not pass by gift.

## Conclusion

The court rejected the trial court’s trust theory because the donor did not manifest an intent to act as trustee, and it refused to treat a failed gift as a trust simply to bypass delivery; the case was remanded to litigate ownership under non-trust theories.


Hebrew Univ. Ass’n v. Nye, 148 Conn. 223, 169 A.2d 641 (Conn. 1961)