Game.

Gas-light Companies.

Gift.

GAME.

1. Killing moose, deer, certain fowl, &c., and taking trout, at certain periods, prohibited. Laws of 1860, 307, ch. 186; re-enacted, Id., 651, ch. 384; repeals Laws of 1859, 1185, ch. 511, § 1.

G.

2. Possession of fresh venison, during certain periods, declared punishable, unless the party charged shall prove it killed prior to the prohibited period or outside of the State. Ib.

give; but said "he would reserve the wheat for S., if he let the farm." Held, not enough to pass the title to S. Supreme Ct., 1806, Noble v. Smith, 2 Johns., 52.

3. Several fire companies in the city of New York made contributions for the relief of the widow and children of a person killed at a fire, and placed the money in the hands of their respective foremen, who invested the money with a view to pay the interest for a term of years to the widow, and then divide the principal among the children.

Held, on a bill by one of the children claiming a portion of the fund, that the gift could not be deemed consummated by a delivery sufficient to vest the title in the beneficiaries. The committee of foremen were to be deemed vested with a discretion as to the manner of applying the fund. V. Chan. Ct., 1832, Taylor v. Fire Department, 1 Edw., 294.

4. H. gave M. a sum to be invested and held in trust for the children of H. M. afterwards executed a bond and mortgage for the amount to the children. Held, that H. could, notwithstanding, dispose of the fund by will. V. Chan. Ot., 1834, Harrison v. McMennomy, 2 Edw., 251. Compare CONTRACTS, 351.

5. A husband bought plate, as a present for his wife, and paid for it, and entered in his family-expense book, "Gave Mrs. T. invoice of plate," setting down the cost; but had his own crest engraved upon it, and not his wife's arms, nor did her name or initials appear upon it. By his will, he gave her for life the use of all his silver plate. Held, that, under the circumstances, the plate could not be deemed given to her. V. Chan. Ct., 1837, Neufville ø. Thomson, 3 Edw., 92.

1. Delivery essential. Where the subjectmatter is capable of delivery, a delivery, actual or symbolical, is essential to constitute a valid gift by parol. There is no distinction, in this respect, between a gift between the living and one made in view of death. The possession, or some means of obtaining possession and control, must be transferred to the donee, or the title does not pass. Supreme Ct., 1806, Noble o. Smith, 2 Johns., 52; 1813, Grangiac o. Arden, 10 Id., 293; 1815, Cook v. Husted, 12 Id., 188; 1844, Brinckerhoff v. Brinckerhoff, 2 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 424; 1852, Huntington v. Gilmore, 14 Barb., 243; 1855, Hunter v. Hunter, 19 Id., 631; 1857, Woodruff v. Cook, 25 Id., 505. 6. H. having previously, during his last illV. Chan. Ct., 1832, Taylor . Fire Depart-ness, conveyed a farm to his sister, told her ment, 1 Edw., 294. Compare, also [citing that, as to the personal property on the farm, many cases], Brinckerhoff v. Lawrence, 2 it was of no use to him, and added, "I will Sandf. Ch., 400. give it to you." Held, that there was no gift, for want of a delivery. Supreme Ct., 1852, Huntington . Gilmore, 14 Barb., 248.

2. N. being owner of growing wheat, said he "would give it to S." S. applied to him for a written transfer, which he refused to

7. At a sale on foreclosure of a chattel mortgage, the property, being on the premises

The amendment relates only to the power of of the mortgagor, was bought by a nephew of the mortgagor. The nephew, pointing out the

directors to issue bonds.

Sufficiency of Delivery.

Gift of Note.

property to his aunt, the wife of the mortga- he died, shortly after. The trunk contained gor, said to her, "I give you this property." a savings-bank book, showing R. entitled to a The property continued on the premises of the deposit. Held, sufficient as a gift of the demortgagor, and in the use of himself and fam-posit credited to R. in the bank-book. N. Y. ily, as before. Held, no gift. There was no Com. Pl., 1854, Penfield v. Thayer, 2 E. D. delivery of the property, either actual or sym-Smith, 305. Compare, infra, 18. bolical. Supreme Ct., 1858, Allen v. Cowan, 28 Barb., 99.

8. What is sufficient as delivery. A father bought a ticket in a lottery, which he declared he gave to his infant daughter E., and wrote her name upon it; and after the ticket had drawn a prize, he declared that he had given the ticket to his child E., and that the prize-money was hers. Held, in an action by the daughter against her father to recover the prize-money as money secured to her use, that this evidence was sufficient for the jury to infer a delivery, and all other formality requisite to a valid gift, and that the title to the money was complete, and vested in E. Supreme Ct., 1813, Grangiac v. Arden, 10 Johns.,

293.

9. T. empowered her son-in-law to sell a house and lot belonging to her. He did so, and employed the money in merchandise, and took a partner, and afterwards sold out his interest in the concern, and took notes for the price. During all this time, T. resided with her son-in-law, and they frequently spoke of the money as his children's. Held, that the proceeds of the house had been set apart by T. for the grandchildren immediately after the sale of the house, and that there was an executed gift at that time; and the notes were decreed to them. V. Chan. Ct., 1834, Minchin v. Merrill, 2 Edw., 333.

12. A transfer of stock by a father to his son, upon the books of the bank,-Held, valid as a gift. Van Deusen v. Rowley, 8 N. Y. (4 Seld.), 358.

13. As to what delivery is sufficient, see, also, Linnendoll v. Doe, 14 Johns., 222.

14. To whom delivery may be made. The delivery need not be to the donee in person. A delivery to a third person to hold for the donee, is sufficient. Supreme Ct., 1855, Hunter v. Hunter, 19 Barb., 631. Chancery, 1829, Coutant v. Schuyler, 1 Paige, 316.

15. A gift for life, of a chattel, operates only as a gift of the use of it; except, perhaps, in the case of articles the use of which involves consumption. Chancery, 1820, Gillespie v. Miller, 5 Johns. Ch., 21.

16. Husband and wife. A wife may make a gift of her separate property to her husband. Supreme Ct., 1859, Gage v. Duchy, 28 Barb., 622. See, also, Shirley v. Shirley, 9 Paige, 363.

17. A gift from a husband to his wife may be supported in equity. V. Chan. Ct., 1837, Neufville v. Thomson,* 3 Edw., 92. Ct. of Appeals, 1850, Borst v. Spelman, 4 N. Y. (4 Comst.), 284. Compare supra, 5.

18. A husband deposited money in a savings bank, upon terms that either he or his wife could draw it. Held, not a gift to the

dicating an intent to give it. Supreme Ct., 1857, Brown v. Brown, 23 Barb., 565. Compare supra, 11.

10. A testator by his will gave several leg-wife, notwithstanding some circumstances inacies, which were addeemed by his subsequent sale of all his personal property; but on such sale he took the purchaser's notes for various sums, payable to the several legatees, and the notes were found inclosed in his will after his death. Held, that the facts amounted to a valid appointment of the payment of the notes to the persons named as payees. V. Chan. Ct., 1840, Logan v. Deshay, Clarke, 209.

19. One's own note. The making and delivering one's own promissory note as a gift, creates no valid obligation. Supreme Ct., 1810, Pearson v. Pearson, 7 Johns., 26.

20. Not even when the note is given as a gift in view of death. Ct. of Appeals, 1849, 11. R., being about to go a journey, said to Harris v. Clark, 3 N. Y. (3 Comst.), 93; afthe plaintiff, "My trunk up-stairs, and what firming S. C., 2 Barb., 94. Supreme Ct., 1820, is in it, I give to you." He thereafter de- Fink v. Cox, 18 Johns., 145; 1858, Phelps v. parted. The previous relation between him Phelps, 28 Barb., 121. Chancery, 1848, Craig and the plaintiff was proved to have been in-. Craig, 3 Barb. Ch., 76, 115. To the contimate. He returned from his journey and

used the trunk and its contents as usual, till Approved, in Denning v. Williams, 26 Conn., 226.

trary were Wright v. Wright, 1 Cow., 598, and Parker v. Emerson, 4 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 219; and see Currie v. Steele, 2 Sandf., 542.

21. A voluntary bond, payable after the death of the obligor,-Held, valid as a debt against his estate, and entitled to precedence of legacies, though it must be postponed to debts founded on consideration. V. Chan. Ct., 1835, Isenhart v. Brown, 2 Edw., 341. 22. The promissory note of a third person is a proper subject of gift in view of death. The English distinction between a note and a bond [1 P. Wms., 358; 3 Atk., 214; 3 Madd., 184] does not prevail in this State. Chancery, 1829, Coutant v. Schuyler, 1 Paige, 316.

23. A gift in view of death, is revocable at the arbitrary will of the donor; and this, notwithstanding the donee has been put in full possession of the subject of the gift. N. Y. Surr. Ct., 1853, Merchant v. Merchant, 2 Bradf., 432.

24. Where a gift is made during the last illness of the donor, the presumption is, that it is a gift in view of death, and, therefore, revocable. Ib.

Governor.

unexpired, the good-will attaches to the unexpired term, and both together are to be sold as partnership effects. A. V. Chan. Ct., 1839, Dougherty v. Van Nostrand, Hoffm., 68.

3. That there can be no right in a retiring partner to share in the good-will, where, by the terms of the dissolution, he has no remaining interest in the premises occupied as the place of business. N. Y. Com. Pl., 1851, Van Dyke v. Jackson, 9 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 188.

4. Lease. The good-will of a lease—i. e., the probability of its renewal by the landlord -is a vendible interest, which a court of equity will recognize and protect. And where a lessee assigns his lease by a transfer embracing the good-will, and subsequently obtains, secretly, a renewal to himself, he will be deemed to hold the renewal as trustee for his assignee. N. Y. Superior Ct., 1855, Bennett v. Vansyckel, 4 Duer, 462. Compare, to nearly same effect, Anderson v. Lemon, 8 N. Y. | (4 Seld.), 236; Phyfe v. Wardell, 5 Paige, 268; affirming S. C., 2 Edw., 47; Burrell v. Bull, 3 Sandf. Ch., 15; Gibbes o. Jenkins, Id., 130.

5. Newspaper route. As to good-will in 25. A testator, domiciled in Connecticut, the carrier's route of a city newspaper, see made a gift in view of death, and (under the Hathaway v. Bennett, 10 N. Y. (6 Seld.), 108. law of that State) his will became impliedly 6. Public lands. As to good-will in a prerevoked, by reason of the birth of a post-emption of, see Armour v. Alexander, 10 Paige, testamentary child. Held, that the revoca- 571; Craig v. Tappin, 2 Sandf. Ch., 78. tion extended to the gift. N. Y. Surr. Ct., Bloomer v. Bloomer, 2 Bradf., 339.

26. That extrinsic circumstances-the relation between the parties, &c., &c.-may be shown in explanation of acts or words relied on as constituting a gift in view of death, where the words or acts are in themselves ambiguous. Smith v. Maine, 25 Barb., 33.

For Definition of good-will, see DEFINITIONS, 240.

GOVERNMENT.

OFFICER.

GOOD-WILL

GOVERNOR.

His powers, duties, and compensation. Id.,

1. Office. Executive power vested in gov1. Partnership property. The good-will ernor holding for two years. Who eligible as of the partnership business-e. g., the celeb-governor and lieutenant-governor, and when and how elected. Const. of 1846, art. 4, §§ 2, 8; art. rity of a newspaper conducted by the firm, 14, § 2. and the probability of its title continuing to attract custom-is partnership property, and must be protected and disposed of as such. N. Y. Superior Ct., Sp. T., 1859, Dayton v. Wilkes, 17 How. Pr., 510; S. P., V. Chan. Ct., 1846, Williams v. Wilson, 4 Sandf. Ch., 379.

2. On the dissolution of a firm, while their lease of the premises occupied by them is still

$$ 4-6.

Rev. Stat., 456, § 3.
2. Ex-officio a regent of the University. 1

Trustee of State halls. Laws of 1830, 274, ch. 249, § 1; 1834, 71, ch. 66, § 1.

Trustee of asylum for idiots. Laws of 1851, 941, ch. 502, § 1.

3. Powers and duties. In general. 1 Rev. Stat., 163-165; 65, §§ 2-4.

11. Incidental expenses. Where a gros sum is appropriated by law to the governor for incidental expenses, the people cannot maintain an action against him to recover back any part of it; for what shall be deemed 5. May administer oath when legally re-incidental charges, not being defined by law, quired by him. 1 Rev. Stat., 185, § 1.

Who are competent.

Disclosure of Proceedings.

cient to convict. People v. Hyler, 2 Park. Cr., 570; S. C., sub nom. People v. Baker, 10 How. Pr., 567.

4. Exclusion of competent persons. The testimony which is, in their judgment, suffifact that the supervisors, in selecting persons to serve as grand-jurors, have excluded persons who were competent, forms no ground of objection to the array. If the persons selected are qualified and unobjectionable, it is enough. A challenge to the array can be supported only by showing that the persons selected are not qualified according to the statute. Supreme Ct., 1829, People v. Jewett, 3 Wend., 314.

5. Thus, even where, upon an indictment found for abducting one who had disclosed inasonic secrets, it was alleged in objection to the indictment, that the supervisors, in selecting persons to serve, had systematically excluded masons, and had selected anti-masons; -Held, that such a rule of exclusion, although improper, did not vitiate the panel, if the persons chosen were competent. Ib.

6. Qualification. That it is not essential that a grand-juror should be a freeholder. People v. Jewett, 6 Wend., 386.

necessary that preliminary proceedings before

10. Disclosure of proceedings. In general, what takes place before the grand-jury is privileged from disclosure. Some exceptions to this rule stated. Supreme Ct., 1847, People v. Hulbut, 4 Den., 133.

11. A grand-juror cannot be called upon as a witness, on the trial of the indictment, to state what witnesses were examined before the grand-jury. Ib.

12. A grand-juror may be required to testify whether the testimony of a witness given before them is different from that given in court, and to disclose the testimony of a witness on his trial, &c., for perjury; but cannot disclose votes or deliberations. 2 Rev. Stat., 724, § 31.

13. Grand-jurors, &c., prohibited from disclosing indictments found until after arrest of defendant. 2 Rev. Stat., 726, § 39.

GRANT.

REAL PROPERTY, and titles there referred

a magistrate should be had, against a party to; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; and LEGISLATION.

accused, to authorize the grand-jury to entertain the charge against him. The provisions of the Revised Statutes, relative to the primary examination of persons accused of crimes, do not limit the right of the People, through their officers, to institute accusations before the grand-jury. That right cannot be taken away by implication. Supreme Ct., 1856, French v. People, 3 Park. Cr., 114.

8. A grand-jury have full power to make inquiry, and indict all persons charged with crime; and this, whether such persons are or are not under arrest and examination before any of the magistrates of the county. And where, pursuant to 2 Rev. Stat., 742, art. 1, a coroner's jury have found the commission of a murder, manslaughter, or assault, and the verdict, with the witnesses, &c., has been sent before the grand-jury, they are bound to proceed to inquiry, and, if the testimony warrants it, to indict. They have no discretion to delay proceedings upon the charge, whether or not the accused is in custody, or whether or not he is under examination before the Oyer & T., 1855, People v. Hyler,

coroner.

2 Park. Cr., 566.

9. Quantity of evidence. It seems, that a grand-jury ought not to find a bill unless upon

GUANO COMPANIES.

General law for incorporating. 2 Laws of 1857, 165, ch. 546.

GUARANTY.*

[This article presents the cases on the interpretation and effect of contracts of guaranty, and the liability of the guarantor and the obligations of the guarantee, together with the whole subject of the validity of promises to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another, and the necessity for a writing in such cases, under the Statute of Frauds. The general principles of the relation of Guarantor and Guarantee will be found under PRINCIPAL AND SURETY; and other illustrations of it will be found under INDEMNITY, and LETTER OF CREDIT; and the titles of the several classes of contracts and personal relations.]