Note.-Quere de hoc. Actual delivery is necessary,notfor identity, but to obviate the objection of nudum pt.cium A gift accompanied with a delivery of possession, is a contract executed ; but if there be no actual delivery, the contract, if gilt, would be executory, and could not be enforced .without a sufficient consideration. Vide 2 Black. Com. 441. Bullock v. Tinnen & wife, 2 Car. Law Rep 271 Picot, adm’r of Legget v. Sanderson. 1 Dev. Rep 309. The only case winch seems contra, is in Brookes’s Abridg. Trespass, 303, cited in Picot v. Sanderson; butthatcase turned upon the qtusii.n whether Trover or Trespass could be maintained upon a general property without actual possession ,- and it may be presumed, that the word “ gives” was used without considering its confined .md technical meaning. 2 Sand. 4f a. Ih the case of Lavender v. Pritchard’s adm’r the delivery of a few ears of corn, was held a good delivery of ad the donor’s corn, 1 hough but a small quantity of it was present. 2 Hay. 337.
Arrington v. Arrington, 2 N.C. 1, 1 Hayw. 1 (1789)
HALIFAX,
OCTOBER TERM, 1789.
Arrington v. Arrington.
In a gift of personal chattels, a symbolical delivery is sufficient.
ACTION of Detinue, for a negro boy given to the Plaintiff by bis uncle San (lifer. The boy being in Virginia at the time of the gift, and no delivery made, except of a dollar instead of the boy : the Court, ruled, that delivery of possession in such cases, is principally in order to identify the property, and that it might also answer the purposes of notoriety ; but when the identity of them could he proven, the gift was good without delivery : a verdict for the Plaintiff accordingly. Arid as well as I recollect, per Spekcek. if there had been two boys of the same name, a delivery might have been necessary, but as there was only o»e, the proof of identity was easy.