## Facts

- Maurice Sweeney owned real property used for a farm and tavern operated with his brother, John Sweeney.
- In 1937, two deeds were prepared and executed: (1) Maurice conveyed the property to John (recorded); (2) John conveyed the property back to Maurice (not recorded).
- Maurice physically delivered the deed to John; John executed the deed back to Maurice and gave it to John’s attorney.
- The stated purpose of the deed back to Maurice was to protect Maurice if John died first.
- After the transactions, Maurice remained in possession and exercised exclusive control, including operating the tavern and leasing portions of the premises; John did not take possession or assert ownership in practice.
- The deed from John to Maurice was later destroyed in a fire at John’s attorney’s office.
- The trial court ruled for John, finding no effective delivery or acceptance of John’s deed back to Maurice; the estate appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a formally executed deed that is manually delivered is presumed delivered and accepted absent proof that no present transfer was intended.
2. Whether an alleged “conditional delivery” of a deed is legally effective when the deed is not placed in escrow with a disinterested third party.

## Decision

- The court reversed the judgment for John and ruled for the administratrix of Maurice’s estate.
- It held the deed from John to Maurice was legally delivered and accepted, vesting title in Maurice.
- It further held that, even if the deed was intended to operate only upon a condition (John’s death before Maurice), the condition was ineffective because the deed was not delivered to an independent third party as an escrow.

## Legal Principles

- Manual delivery of a duly executed deed creates a presumption of legal delivery and acceptance, particularly when the conveyance is beneficial to the grantee; the presumption may be rebutted only by evidence that no present transfer was intended.
- Execution formalities (including an attestation clause) may constitute prima facie evidence supporting delivery.
- A deed cannot be made effective only upon a condition by delivering it to the grantee (or the grantee’s agent); a valid conditional delivery requires delivery to a disinterested third party to hold and deliver upon the condition’s occurrence.
- Subsequent conduct (possession, control, and enjoyment of the property) may corroborate intent regarding delivery and ownership.

## Conclusion

The court held that the deed from John to Maurice was effectively delivered and accepted, and any attempt to treat the transfer as conditional failed as a matter of law because the deed was not placed in escrow with a disinterested third party; title therefore vested in Maurice and passed to his estate.


Sweeney v. Sweeney, 126 Conn. 391, 11 A.2d 806 (Conn. 1940)