SPEELMAN V. PASCAL
178 N.E.2d 723 (1961)


Procedure: Action against administratrix to establish right to participate in decedent's share of profits from the production of a musical show.

Facts: Decedent obtained rights to produce a musical version of George Bernard Shaw's play 'Pygmalion' Before the musical was written or produced, decedent wrote a letter to secretary (P), in which he agreed to give her a share of the profits from the musical The letter was delivered to P Decedent died before the musical was produced When the nusical was finally produced, it proved to be highly successful, and P sued to enforce the gift made in the letter against decedent's estate The question presented in the lawsuit was whether the paper constituted a valid, complete, present gift to P by way of assignment of a share in future royalties when and if collected The trial court granted P summary judgment and ruled that P was entitled to receive the percentages set out in the 1954 agreement, required D to render an accounting and to make payments D appealed

Issue: May a valid present gift be made of property that is not in existence at the lime the gift is made?

Rule: A trust must have a beneficiary. However, the beneficiary may be unborn or unascertained when the trust is created. If there is more than one beneficiary and they are too indefinite to be ascertained at the time the trust becomes effective, the trust may fail, in which case there will be a resulting trust in favor of the settlor, his heirs, or other successors in interest.

Holding: The Supreme Court, affirmed. The defendant appealed by permission of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, Desmond, C. J., held that a delivered letter to the plaintiff confirming that the decedent was to give the plaintiff certain percentages of decedent's shares of the profits from the then nonexistent stage musical version of ‘Pygmalion,’ known later as ‘My Fair Lady,’ was an assignment of future royalties and a completed gift. Judgment affirmed.

Analysis:The question here is: Did the delivery of the letter constitute a valid, complete, present gift to Pby way of assignment of a share in future royalties? We hold that il did. "there are many instances of courts enforcing assignments of rights lo sums that were expected thereafter to become due to the assignor. In those cases that failed, there had not been such a completed and irrevocable delivery of the subject matter of the gift as to put the gift beyond cancellation by the donor. Here, there was nothing left for Pascal to do to make an irrevocable transfer to P of part of Pascal's right to receive royalties from the productions.