Speelman v. Pascal case brief summary
178 N.E.2d 723 (1961)
CASE FACTS
Defendant appealed the grant of summary judgment for plaintiff, contending that the delivery of an agreement did not constitute a valid, complete, and present gift to plaintiff by way of assignment of a share in future royalties when and if it was collected from the exhibition of the musical stage version and film version of a play. The trial court found that plaintiff was entitled to receive the percentages set out in the agreement, required defendant to render plaintiff accountings from time to time of all moneys received from the musical play and the film version, and ordered defendant to make the payments required by the agreement.
DISCUSSION
The decision was affirmed on appeal, because the assignment to plaintiff of a future interest which was not present at the time of the assignment could create an equitable title enforceable by the court.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the decision because the assignment to plaintiff created an equitable title that was enforceable against defendant.
Suggested Study Aids For Wills, Trusts & Estate Law
178 N.E.2d 723 (1961)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant appealed from
the order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First
Judicial Department (New York), which affirmed a grant of summary
judgment for plaintiff in her action involving the assignment of a
future interest.CASE FACTS
Defendant appealed the grant of summary judgment for plaintiff, contending that the delivery of an agreement did not constitute a valid, complete, and present gift to plaintiff by way of assignment of a share in future royalties when and if it was collected from the exhibition of the musical stage version and film version of a play. The trial court found that plaintiff was entitled to receive the percentages set out in the agreement, required defendant to render plaintiff accountings from time to time of all moneys received from the musical play and the film version, and ordered defendant to make the payments required by the agreement.
DISCUSSION
The decision was affirmed on appeal, because the assignment to plaintiff of a future interest which was not present at the time of the assignment could create an equitable title enforceable by the court.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the decision because the assignment to plaintiff created an equitable title that was enforceable against defendant.
Suggested Study Aids For Wills, Trusts & Estate Law
No comments:
Post a Comment