44. Sheppard's Touchstone, 57, 4 Kent. Comm. 455; Doe d. Garnons v. Knight, 5 Barn. & C. 671; Xenos v. Wickham, L. R. 2 H. L. 312: Gulf Red Cedar Co. v. Crenshaw, 169 Ala. 606. 53 So. 812; Watson v. Hill, 123 Ark. 601, 186 S. W. 68; Crozer v. White - (Cal.) - 100 Pac. 130: Clark v. Clark, 183 111. 448. 75 Am. St. Rep. 115; Gomel v. Mc-daniels, 269 111. 362, 109 N. E. 996; Matheson v. Matheson. 139 Iowa, 511, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1167, 117 N. W. 755; Harmon v. Bower, 78 Kan. 135, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 502, 16 Ann. Cas. 121, 98 Pac. 51; Beatty v. Beatty, 151 Ky. 547, 152 S. W. 540; Clark v. Creswell, 112 Md. 339. 21 Ann. Cas. 338, 76 Atl. 579; Foster v. Mansfield, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 412: Cooper v. Cooper, 162 Mich. 304.

ing thereby that the conveyance may take effect by reason of physical transfer of the instrument to a third person, this would seem to result, not from any particular virtue in the transfer, but from the fact that the transfer may show an intention to make the instrument legally operative. A declaration to such third person of an intention that the deed shall take effect would seem to be quite as effective as a manual transfer to him, if satisfactorily proven,45 and would indeed, as affording indubitable evidence of the grantor's intention, have a conclusiveness that may be lacking in the case of a mere manual transfer. Such a transfer to a third person, if not made with the intention that the instrument shall be legally operative, does not con127 N. W. 266: Barnard v. Thurston. 86 Minn. 343. 90 N. W. 574; Sneathen v. Sneathen. 104 Mo. 201, 24 Am. St. Rep. 326; Jones v. Swayze, 42 N. J. L. 279; Church v. Gilman, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 656; Robbins v. Roscoe, 120 N. C. 79, 38 L. R. A. 238, 58 Am. St. Rep. 774: Meeks v. Still-well, 54 Ohio St. 541; Belcher v. La Grande Nat. Bk. 87 Ore. 665, 171 Pac. 410; Blight v. Schenck, 10 Pa. St. 285; Eckman v. Eck-man, 55 Pa. St. 269; Kanner v. Startz - Tex Civ. App. - , 203 S. W. 603.

Statements, occasionally found, to the effect that the instrument must be handed to the third person with the intention that he pass it on, so to speak, to the grantee named (See e. g. Osborne v. Eslinger, 155 Ind. 351, 80 Am. St. Rep. 240, 58 N. E. 439) or that he must so pass it on (Furenes v. Eide, 109 Iowa, 511, 77 Am. St. Rep. 545, 80 N. W. 539; Jackson v. Phipps, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 418) are, it is submitted, absolutely incorrect. The intention of the grantor as to whether the instrument shall take effect as a conveyance Is the subject for ascertainment, not his intention, if he happens to have any, as to the ultimate custody of the writing.

In one state it appears to have been decided that a manual transfer to a third person cannot involve delivery unless such person is a duly authorized agent of the grantee. Jameson v. Goodwin, - Okla. - 170 Pac. 241, Such a view is, it is submitted, entirely out of harmony with the authorities generally.

45. 3 Preston, Abstracts, 62; Doe d. Garnons v. Knight, 5 Barn. & C. 671; Xenos v. Wick-ham, L. R. 2 H. L. 312; Linton v. Brown's Adm'rs (C. C.) 20 Fed. 455; Rushin v. Shields, 11 Ga. 636, 56 Am. Dec. 436; Moore v. Hazelton, 9 Allen (Mass.) 102; Regan v. Howe, 121 Mass. 424; Kane v. Mackin, 9 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 387; Vought v. Vought, stitute a delivery;46 nor does such a transfer to the grantee himself, if the transfer is not with such intention, but is for another purpose as, for instance, to enable him to examine the instrument.47

In spite, however, of these numerous decisions recognizing the minor importance of the matter of actual transfer of the instrument in connection with the question of delivery, the courts not infrequently speak as if such transfer were an essential in delivery. The occasional mention, moreover, of delivery "to" the grantee, suggests the idea of a physical transfer to him. The delivery of a conveyance or other instrument involves in its essence no delivery "to" any one, since it means merely the expression, by word or act, of an intention that the instrument shall be legally operative, and the fact that in many cases such intention is indicated by the making of a physical transfer does not show that such transfer is necessary. The partial survival of the primitive formalism, as it has been well termed,48 which attached some peculiar efficacy to the physical transfer of the instrument, as involving a symbolical transfer of the property described therein, is presumably to be attributed to the fact that in other connections the words "deliver" and "delivery," as applied to inanimate things, ordinarily have reference to a physical transfer.

50 N. J. Eq. 177, 27 Atl. 489; Scrugham v. Wood, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 54,5; Diehl v. Emig, 65 Pa. St. 320; Contra, Moore v. Collins, 15 N. C. 384.

46. Co. Litt. 36a; Sheppard's Touchstone 57; Culver v. Carroll, 175 Ala. 469, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 103, 57 So. 767; Baker v. Baker, - (Cal.) - , 100 Pac. 892; Merrills v. Swift, 18 Conn. 257; Porter v. Woodhouse, 59 Conn. 568, 13 L. R. A. 64, 21 Am. St. Rep. 131, 22 Atl. 299; Lange v. Cullinan 205 111. 365, 68 N. E. 934; Connor v. Buhl, 115 Mich. 531, 73 N. W. 821; Cannon v. Cannon, 26 N. J. Eq. 316; Jackson v. Phlpps, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 418; Mitchell's Lessee v. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 377; Sears v. Scranton Trust Co., 228 Pa. 226, 20 Ann. Cas. 1145, 77 Atl. 423; Leftwich v. Early, 115 Va. 323, 79 S. E. 384; Showalter v. Spangler, 93 Wash. 326, 160 Pac. 1042.

A statement of an Intention that the conveyance shall be immediately operative has been regarded as effective as a delivery, although the instrument had been previously placed in another's custody to hold it in behalf of the grantor. Moore v. Trott, 162 Cal. 268. 122 Pac. 462; Elliott v. Hoffhine, 97 Kan. 26, 154 Pac. 225.

47. Bray v. Bray, 132 Ark. 438, 201 S. W. 281; Kenney v. Parks, 137 Cal. 527, 70 Pac. 556; Cox v. Schnerr, 172 Cal. 371. 156 Pac. 509; Oswald v. Caldwell. 225 111. 224, 80 N. E. 131: Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh, 260 111. 179, 103 N. E. 65; Witt v. Witt, 174 Iowa. 173. 156 N. W. 321; Ball v. Sandlin, 176 Ky. 537, 175 S. W. 1089; Tewkesbury v. Tewkesbury, 222 Mass. 595, 111 N. E. 394; Comer v. Baldwin, 16 Minn. 172; Braman v. Bingbam, 26 N. Y. 483; Gaylord v. Gaylord, 150 N. C. 222. 63 S. E. 1028; Clark v. Clark. 56 Ore. 218. 107 Pac. 23; In re Nicholl's Petition. 190 Pa. 308, 42 Atl. 692; Gordon v. White, 33 S. D. 234. 145 N. W. 439; Dwinell v. Bliss. 58 Vt. 353, 5 Atl. 317; Zoerb v. Paetz, 137 Wis. 59, 117 N. W. 793.