## Facts

- Joseph Van Pelt, unmarried and seriously ill, was bedridden shortly before his death.
- Van Pelt summoned his longtime housekeeper, Julia Newman, gave her a set of keys, and stated that he wanted her to have everything in the house.
- One key opened a bureau drawer in Van Pelt’s room containing a life-insurance policy and other valuable papers.
- After Van Pelt died, the administrator, F. W. Bost, took possession of the house contents, collected $3,000 in life-insurance proceeds, and treated other items (including proceeds from insurance on a burned piano) as estate assets.
- Newman sued the administrator, asserting a valid gift causa mortis of the house contents effected through delivery of the keys and Van Pelt’s statements.
- The jury returned a verdict for Newman, and the administrator appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether delivery of keys and a general statement that the donee should have “everything in the house” effected a valid gift causa mortis of (a) furniture and other tangible chattels and (b) a life-insurance policy and other papers located in a bureau drawer.
2. Whether constructive delivery by keys is sufficient when the claimed subject of the gift is present and capable of actual manual delivery.

## Decision

- The court affirmed only in part and limited Newman’s recovery.
- It upheld a valid gift causa mortis of the bureau and other furniture or chattels that were practically transferred through the keys as constructive delivery.
- It held there was no valid gift causa mortis of the life-insurance policy and similar papers because they were present and capable of manual delivery, yet were not actually delivered.
- It also rejected Newman’s claim to the insurance proceeds related to the destroyed piano, concluding that statements and intentions about the piano did not complete a gift of the proceeds.
- The estate, through the administrator, was entitled to retain the insurance proceeds and other assets not effectively delivered.

## Legal Principles

- A gift causa mortis requires (1) donative intent in contemplation of impending death and (2) delivery of the subject of the gift.
- When the item is present and capable of actual manual delivery, the law requires actual delivery; constructive delivery will not suffice.
- Constructive delivery (including transfer by key) may satisfy the delivery requirement when actual delivery is impracticable (e.g., bulky chattels) or when the item is not readily susceptible to manual transfer in the circumstances.
- General declarations of intent or informal labels of ownership, without completed delivery or transfer, do not pass title to money or proceeds claimed as a gift.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a strict delivery requirement for deathbed gifts: keys could operate as constructive delivery for large tangible chattels in the house, but they could not substitute for actual delivery of a readily hand-deliverable life-insurance policy or confer rights to insurance proceeds absent a completed transfer.


Newman v. Bost, 122 N.C. 524, 29 S.E. 848 (N.C. 1898)