Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Chris22, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Gilbert v. McSpadden

(1936)

Texas Courts of Civil Appeals - 91 S.W.2d 889

Tags: Property

tl;dr:

A delivery of deed is valid only if the grantor unequivocally expresses an intention to part with the instrument presently and unconditionally.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Gilbert v. McSpadden

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Gilbert v. McSpadden case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingGilbert v. McSpadden case brief facts & holding

Facts:Tom Gilbert owned several tracts of land that he intended...

Holding:The court held that the tracts belonged to the estate...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Gilbert v. McSpadden case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Gilbert v. McSpadden | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: ALEXANDER, Justice.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The case involves the validity of two deeds conveying land to Tom Gilbert's children. Although he acknowledged and executed the deeds, he retained possession and control of them. The administratrix of Gilbert's estate claims that the deeds were never properly delivered and seeks possession of the land and rents collected to pay the debts of the estate. The court held that delivery of a deed requires an intention on the part of the grantor that the deed shall presently become operative and effective. As Gilbert retained control of the deeds and did not evidence an intention that they should presently become effective, the conveyance is not valid. The judgment is reversed, and the case is sent back to the trial court to determine the amount of rents owed to the administratrix and to award her title, possession, and the rents from the land. However, the judgment should not prevent the appellees, who are heirs or devisees of Tom Gilbert, from recovering the land or any remaining portion of it that is still in the hands of the administratrix after the estate has been fully administered. The lower court erred in not considering the issue of delivery of the deeds.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Gilbert v. McSpadden case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Gilbert v. McSpadden

Chat for Gilbert v. McSpadden
brief-641
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.