have carefully read the record, which contains over 130 pages of printed testimony, and have reached the conclusion that the material allegations of the bill, in the points relied upon by complainant, have not been sustained by the evidence. We are satisfied that the equities of the case are with the defendants, and that the complainant has wholly failed to make a case for equitable relief; and we think that the circuit judge was fully justified in holding that the relief prayed for in the bill should be denied. We find no evidence to support the claim that deceased made the transfers in question to defeat a claim of Dr. Grimes amounting to less than $100. The subject-matter involved in this controversy may be classed under two heads: I. Personal Estate. (a) The personal property of the deceased, consisting of his personal effects, clothing, jewelry, and the like. Under this head the instrument executed by William McConville was upon a paper bearing the letterhead of the firm, which appears to have been prepared by John McConville, and was as follows: "OFFICE OF MCCONVILLE BROS., "DEALERS IN GROCERIES, FRESH AND SALT MEATS, VEGETABLES AND POULTRY, "COR. FOURTH AND WARREN AVES. "DETROIT, MICH., DEC. 15, 1909. "I, William McConville, do this day sell to John McConville all my personal effects, consisting of clothing and jewelry, for $5.00, five dollars, and other good and valuable considerations paid me in hand this fifteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and nine. "Witness: "H. O. ROUNDS. "JAMES F. CLARK." "Wм. MCCONVILLE. (b) His half interest in the grocery business conducted under the name of McConville Bros. This was evidenced by an instrument prepared by the witness Franklin P. Monfort, and signed by William McConville, as follows: "Know all men by these presents, that in consideration of one dollar and other good and valuable considerations, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I do hereby grant, sell, transfer and deliver unto John McConville, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, my undivided entire interest in the firm of McConville Brothers, the grantor and grantee named herein, located and doing business at No. 915 Fourth avenue, in the city of Detroit, county of Wayne and State of Michigan, consisting of merchandise, book accounts, etc. To have and to hold all and singular the said goods and chattels forever; and the said grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that he is the lawful owner of said goods and chattels; that they are free from all incumbrances; that he has good right to sell the same as aforesaid; and that he will warrant and defend the same against all lawful claims and demands of all persons whomsoever. "In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 14th day of December, A. D. 1909. "WM. MCCONVILLE.. [Seal.] "In presence of "FRANKLIN P. MONFORT. "H. O. ROUNDS.” (c) The assignment of land contract bearing date the 10th day of September, 1908, between William McConville of the first part, and Harry M. Baxter and A. William Baxter, parties of the second part, covering certain real estate in the city of Detroit, upon which there was unpaid of purchase money, on December 14, 1909, about the sum of $3,900. The assignment of this instrument was evidenced by a paper writing prepared by said Monfort, and signed by William McConville, in the following language: "Know all men by these presents, that I, William McConville, of the city of Detroit, county of Wayne and State of Michigan, do hereby sell, assign, transfer and set over unto John McConville, of the same place, all my right, title and interest in the land contract hereto annexed, for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar and other good and valuable considerations to me in hand paid. "In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 14th day of December, nineteen hundred and nine. "In presence of "WM. MCCONVILLE. "FRANKLIN P. MONFORT. "H. O. ROUNDS." [Seal.] (d) The savings account in the Michigan Savings Bank. This money was transferred to the account of John McConville on or about December 15th. II. Real Estate. This consisted of three parcels of land that were held by William McConville and John McConville as tenants in common. The conveyance of this real estate is evidenced by a quitclaim deed in the usual form, purporting to have been made, acknowledged and executed by William McConville, and duly witnessed by F. P. Monfort and H. O. Rounds on the 15th day of December, 1909, in consideration of the sum of $1 and other valuable considerations, which deed was duly recorded on the day of its execution. Appellant's counsel claims that the transactions involved, if valid, were absolute transfers, divested William McConville of dominion over his property, and amounted to gifts inter vivos. We assent to this, and are of the opinion that the gifts were all of that nature, and a careful examination of this record convinces us that William McConville, while in the exercise of a full understanding, and in complete possession of his mental faculties, seized of a mortal illness, and knowing that he must die, carefully and deliberately undertook to give to his brother John, his nearest and closest friend, all of his property; that he took such measures in the execution of his desire as to fulfill the requirements necessary to sustain a gift inter vivos, and as to the personal property, the transfers might be sustained, either as gifts inter vivos or causa mortis; nor do we deem that this position is at all inconsistent. Generally speaking, a gift inter vivos is a gift made by one person to another without the inducement or the apprehension of death. A gift made in anticipation of death, but not conditioned upon that event, is a gift inter vivos, and not a gift causa mortis. Moreover, a gift made with the intent that it shall take effect immediately and irrevocably, and fully executed by a complete and unconditional delivery, is good and valid as a gift inter vivos, although at the time the donor is in extremis, and dies soon after. 14 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), pp. 1014-1053, and cases cited; Henschel v. Maurer, 69 Wis. 576 (34 N. W. 926, 2 Am. St. Rep. 757). In this case, Cassoday, J., speaking for the supreme court of Wisconsin, said: "Where a gift of personal property is made with intent to take effect immediately and irrevocably, and is fully executed by complete and unconditional delivery, it is certainly binding upon the donor as a gift inter vivos, and even if the donor at the time is in extremis and dies soon after" (citing cases). See, also, Dresser v. Dresser, 46 Me. 48; Gilligan v. Lord, 51 Conn. 562. An element necessarily present to uphold the validity of both classes of gifts is a delivery of the subjectmatter, actual or constructive, or symbolical, in some cases. Another instrument was introduced in evidence bearing date Detroit, Mich., December 18, 1909, upon the letterhead of McConville Bros. That instrument reads as follows: "Jack, it is my wish when things are straightened out, and you are to take your own time about it, that you make these gifts as follows, or as you see fit: Mother fifty dollars. Mrs. John McConville, one thousand dollars, my watch charm and diamond ring and a pair of shoes. Brother James, five hundred dollars. Sisters $25.00, twenty-five dollars each. All nieces and nephews, $10.00, ten dollars each. Peter's and Fred's wives, $25.00, twenty-five dollars. "This is my last and only wishes of the way I wish my earthly possessions divided. "WM. MCCONVILLE. "Father Griffin (paid) fifty dollars. (Line drawn through.) "Pay all just debts and use your own judgment for the balance, if any. "WM. MCCONVILLE. It is the contention of appellant that this instrument negatives the idea that here was an absolute, irrevocable gift made on the 14th and 15th days of December, and our attention has been called to the cases of Trabbic v. Trabbic, 142 Mich. 387 (105 N. W. 876); Hagerman v. Wigent, 108 Mich. 192 (65 N. W. 756), and Holmes v. McDonald, 119 Mich. 563 (78 N. W. 647, 75 Am. St. Rep. 430), in support of that position. In Trabbic v. Trabbic the bill was filed by the widow, a second wife; she had married Peter Trabbic, who was at the time a widower with nine children. Mr. Trabbic owned a mortgage for $5,600, executed by one Dusseau. Before the death of Mr. Trabbic he sent one of his sons to Mr. Dusseau. He desired to divide the mortgage among his sons. He sent for a scrivener and directed that the old mortgage be discharged, for which purpose he gave the son power of attorney, and directed that a new mortgage be taken direct to defendant. This was done. He gave verbal instructions to the defendant to divide the amount of this mortgage, when it was paid, among his sons in equal shares. The executor having refused to inventory it as one of the assets of the estate, complainant filed her |