You are on page 1of 1

Transfer c. Cited the case of Orris v.

Whipple: All there is to show delivery in the case

226 Iowa 162 In Re: Martens Estate is that the deed was prepared and executed by Miss Aken; that she told others
Miller, J. that she wanted the plaintiffs to have the property and that she had prepared
papers for providing. She put the deed in her safety deposit box and retained
The mother, when she was still alive, executed a note for $1500 IFO her daughter and left it the key. We do not think these admitted facts show a legal delivery of the
in an envelope in her safe. The envelope was only discovered by her daughter when the deed in question.
mother died. Daughter delivered envelope to lawyer, lawyer opened envelope in the
presence of daughter, and discovered the note. The daughter now filed a claim against her DISPOSITIVE PORTION
mothers estate based on the note. Trial court denied the claim because there was a failure Judgment affirmed
to establish legal delivery. The Court agreed ruling that in order for there to be a valid claim,
the delivery must have been made during the mothers lifetime.

There must have been legal delivery in order for a claim based on a note to be valid. In this
case, the claim against the estate is not valid because delivery should have been done
during the lifetime of the decedent.

1. Mabel Martens Bonk filed a claim based on a note for $1500 against the administrator
of her mothers estate.
2. Her mother died in 1936, and upon examining the contents of her mothers safe, she
discovered an envelope with the following written in her mothers handwriting: Please
give this to S. Fisher in case of death. Mabel Martens from mother.
a. Mabel delivered the envelope to Simon Fisher at his law office.
b. Fisher opened the envelope and found a note for $1500. Mabel was told by
her mother that she had a letter for her in case of the latters death, but knew
nothing of a note.
i. The note was dated March 1, 1930, promising to pay Mabel $1500
on December 1, 1930, signed by the deceased.
c. Mabel had loaned her parents $1000 from time to time, and did not receive
$500 upon marriage, unlike her other siblings.
3. Simon Fishers testimony:
a. He first saw the note after the death of the decedent; and opened the
envelope containing the said note in the presence of Mabel and the
administrator of the estate.
b. In 1930, Mabel agreed to accept a note from her mother in satisfaction of
%1500 owed by her fathers estate, but she was not paid because of
insufficiency of funds.
c. Decedent had told him that she executed a note in favor of her daughter for
$1500 and that she would bring it to his office, but later on said that she put it
in a safe at her home for him to come and get at any time upon hearing of her
4. The trial court denied the claim ruling that there was no legal delivery of the note.


1. W/N there was legal delivery NONE
a. Sec. 9746 of the Code provides that every contract on a negotiable
instrument is incomplete and irrevocable until delivery of the instrument
for the purpose of giving effect thereto.
b. The note could not have been the basis of a valid claim against the decedents
estate for there was no legal delivery during the lifetime of the decedent.