## Facts

- Emory S. Reynolds, a childless widower, was a longtime intimate friend of Frank Newell.
- Around March 1, 1918, Reynolds was seriously ill with pneumonia and expected to die.
- Reynolds sent for Newell and delivered a diamond ring to him, stating he had settled his affairs except “handing over the ring” and was ready to die.
- Reynolds recovered from pneumonia and lived more than four years.
- After recovery, Newell did not want to wear the ring and expressed willingness to return it for Reynolds’s use during Reynolds’s life.
- Reynolds insisted that Newell keep the ring, and there was evidence Reynolds intended Newell to have the ring regardless of whether Reynolds lived or died.
- After Reynolds’s death, the National Bank of Norwich, as executor of Reynolds’s estate, claimed the ring as estate property; Newell sued for possession.
- The trial court found a valid inter vivos gift to Newell; the executor appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the transfer made while Reynolds was dangerously ill could be sustained as a valid gift causa mortis despite Reynolds’s later recovery.
2. Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s finding of a valid inter vivos gift (present, unconditional transfer) of the ring to Newell.

## Decision

- The court held the transfer could not be sustained as a gift causa mortis because the donor’s recovery automatically revoked any such gift.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Reynolds made a valid inter vivos gift of the ring to Newell.
- Judgment for Newell was affirmed; the ring was not part of the estate.

## Legal Principles

- A gift causa mortis is revoked by operation of law if the donor recovers from the illness or peril that induced the gift.
- The classification of a transfer as inter vivos or causa mortis turns on intent: whether the donor intended a present transfer of title that is irrevocable and unconditional, effective whether the donor lives or dies.
- A valid inter vivos gift may be made even when the donor expects imminent death, if there is donative intent to transfer a present interest, delivery, and acceptance.
- Gifts are disfavored as a matter of proof; the alleged donee bears the burden to establish the gift.
- Post-transfer statements and conduct may be considered to determine whether the donor intended a present, unconditional gift rather than a death-conditioned transfer.

## Conclusion

Because Reynolds recovered, the ring transfer could not stand as a gift causa mortis, but the evidence supported a present, unconditional transfer with delivery and acceptance; the ring therefore belonged to Newell as a valid inter vivos gift and was excluded from the estate.


Newell v. National Bank of Norwich, 214 A.D. 331, 212 N.Y.S. 158 (N.Y. App. Div. 1925)