Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Basket Vs. Hassell

Basket vs Hassell

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Apr-16-1883
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/84531

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
108 U.S. 267
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Basket

Respondent

Hassell

Excerpt

basket v. hassell - 108 u.s. 267 (1883) u.s. supreme court basket v. hassell, 108 u.s. 267 (1883) basket v. hassell decided april 16, 1883 108 u.s. 267 appeal from the circuit court of the united states for the district of indiana syllabus the attempted transfer of a certificate of deposit on the donor's death-bed, reported in basket v. hassell, 107 u. s. 602 , cannot be enforced here as a will of personalty, because such will does not take effect under the statutes of tennessee until probate. motion for a rehearing. the case was decided at october term, 1882, and is reported 107 u. s. 107 u.s. 602. page 108 u. s. 269 mr. justice matthews delivered the opinion of the court. it is now urged that the endorsement and delivery of the certificate of deposit, if void as a gift mortis causa, is nevertheless good as a will of personalty under the laws of tennessee, and, passing the title as such, entitled the appellant to a decree for the payment of the money. but the conclusion is not justified by the assumption, for a will of personalty in tennessee does not take effect until probate, statutes of tennessee, 1871, § 2169; suggett v. kitchell, 6 yerger 425; and until probate, and the appointment of an executor or an administrator cum testamento annexo, the title to the fund passes to the administrator appointed previously, as in case of intestacy, to whom the decree in this case awarded it. the petition is therefore denied.

Full Judgment

Basket v. Hassell - 108 U.S. 267 (1883)
U.S. Supreme Court Basket v. Hassell, 108 U.S. 267 (1883)

Basket v. Hassell

Decided April 16, 1883

108 U.S. 267

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SYLLABUS

The attempted transfer of a certificate of deposit on the donor's death-bed, reported in Basket v. Hassell, 107 U. S. 602 , cannot be enforced here as a will of personalty, because such will does not take effect under the statutes of Tennessee until probate.

Motion for a rehearing. The case was decided at October term, 1882, and is reported 107 U. S. 107 U.S. 602.

Page 108 U. S. 269

MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS delivered the opinion of the Court.

It is now urged that the endorsement and delivery of the certificate of deposit, if void as a gift mortis causa, is nevertheless good as a will of personalty under the laws of Tennessee, and, passing the title as such, entitled the appellant to a decree for the payment of the money.

But the conclusion is not justified by the assumption, for a will of personalty in Tennessee does not take effect until probate, Statutes of Tennessee, 1871, § 2169; Suggett v. Kitchell, 6 Yerger 425; and until probate, and the appointment of an executor or an administrator cum testamento annexo, the title to the fund passes to the administrator appointed previously, as in case of intestacy, to whom the decree in this case awarded it.

The petition is therefore denied.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial