Tbe defendants have abandoned all assignments of error except tbat of the court’s refusal to dismiss tbe action. Tbe motion is founded on tbe theory tbat a person whose life is insured cannot make a voluntary gift of a policy without delivering tbe policy or reducing tbe transaction to writing or conforming to tbe stipulations contained in tbe policy.
It was stipulated tbat if tbe policy should be assigned or given as security a duplicate of tbe assignment should be filed at once with tbe company and tbat due proof of interest should be produced when tbe policy became payable. Tbe evident object of these provisions was tbe protection of tbe company; but as tbe policy has been paid and tbe company relieved of liability tbe controverted point is whether tbe plaintiffs or tbe administrator is entitled to tbe fund. Tbe contest between these parties raises tbe two questions whether a policy of insurance can be given away by parol and whether its actual delivery to tbe donee is indispensable to tbe gift.
*326By tbe early common law gifts of ¿hoses in action were not permitted, the theory being that they were not susceptible of delivery; but the rule is now established that choses in action may* be the subject of a valid gift. Accordingly it is generally held that a gift of an insurance policy may be made by delivery without a written assignment. Because delivery of an article may be actual, constructive, or symbolic, no absolute rule, applicable to all cases, can be laid down. It is a settled principle, however, that the donor’s surrender of the property must Be complete and his dominion and control of it must be relinquished. The principle was clearly stated in the instructions given the jury and has the general support of the authorities. 28 C. J., 645, sec. 39, 657, sec. 60; 12 R. C. L., 935, sec. 12, 943, sec. 20; Opitz v. Karel, 99 A. S. R., 1004 and 62 L. R. A., 982; Gledhill v. McCoombs, Ann. Cas., 1914D, 294 and annotation; Wilson v. Featherston, 122 N. C., 747; Parker v. Mott, 181 N. C., 435.
No error.