Hebrew University Ass’n v. Nye
169 A.2d 641 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An imperfect gift will not be enforced as a declaration of trust merely because the gift is invalid for lack of delivery. To create an enforceable oral trust, the owner must manifest a clear intention to impose upon themselves the enforceable duties of a trustee, not merely an intention to make a future gift.
Facts:
- After the death of her husband, Abraham S. Yahuda, in 1951, Ethel S. Yahuda became the sole owner of his valuable library of rare books and manuscripts.
- In January 1953, while attending a luncheon held in her honor by the Hebrew University Association (the plaintiff) in Israel, Ethel publicly announced that she was giving the library to the university.
- The following day, Ethel signed a newspaper release confirming the gift of the library to the plaintiff.
- Over the next two years, Ethel repeatedly stated, both orally and in writing, that she 'had given' the library to the plaintiff and refused offers to purchase items from it on that basis.
- Ethel began cataloging and arranging the materials for shipment to Israel and sent some items to a warehouse for crating.
- The crated items remained in Ethel's name, and no consignee was ever specified for the shipment.
- Ethel S. Yahuda died on March 6, 1955, before any portion of the library had been shipped or delivered to the plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- The Hebrew University Association sued the executors of Ethel S. Yahuda's will in a Connecticut trial court.
- The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment affirming its ownership of the library and an injunction to prevent its disposal.
- The trial court found for the plaintiff, ruling that Ethel Yahuda had created an express oral trust of the library for the plaintiff's benefit.
- The defendants (the executors) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a donor's public declaration of an intent to give personal property, which is never actually or constructively delivered, create an enforceable oral trust in favor of the intended donee?
Opinions:
Majority - King, J.
No. A donor's public declaration of an intent to give personal property, without actual or constructive delivery, does not create an enforceable oral trust. The court reasoned that there is a clear distinction between a gift inter vivos and a declaration of trust. A gift which is imperfect for lack of delivery will not be turned into a declaration of trust for the sole reason that it is imperfect. To create a valid oral trust, the property owner must manifest an intention to impose upon herself enforceable duties of a trust nature, not simply express a donative intent. Here, there were no facts to indicate that Ethel Yahuda ever intended to constitute herself a trustee of the library; her actions were consistent with an intent to make a future gift, which requires delivery to be completed. Since there was neither actual nor constructive delivery of the library, the attempted gift failed, and the court will not use the fiction of a trust to save it.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional, formal requirements for a valid inter vivos gift, specifically the element of delivery. It establishes a firm precedent that courts will not use the equitable doctrine of a declaration of trust to cure a legally defective gift. The case clarifies that the intent required to create a trust is fundamentally different from the intent required to make a gift; a trust requires the assumption of enforceable duties, not just a desire to transfer ownership. This ruling maintains a clear doctrinal separation between gifts and trusts, preventing the delivery requirement for gifts from being rendered meaningless by disappointed donees claiming a trust was created.
