A written instrument, regarded as a constitutive or dispositive act, becomes legally operative by reason either (1) of the mutual action of two or more persons, parties in interest thereto, or (2) of the action of one person, from whom the writing

32. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 6501.

33. See Norton v. Davis, 83 Tex. 32, 18 S. W. 430: Drew v. Arnold, 85 Mo. 128; Tavenner v. Barrett, 21 W. Va. 656; Spencer v. Reese, 165 Pa. St. 158, 30 Atl. 722; Mettler v. Miller, 129 111. 630, 22 N. E. 529.

34. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec.Sec. 1590-1606.

The expression "delivery," as applied to a written instrument, had its inception, it appears,37 in connection with written conveyances of lands, the manual transfer

35. Post, Sec. 463, note 7.

36. Post, Sec. 469.

37. Brissaud, French Private Law, (Continental Legal History

Series) Sec.Sec. 298, 302, 313; 2 Pollock & Maitland, Hist. Eng. Law, 85, 86.

38. Brissaud. op. cit. Sec. 370; 2 Pollock & Maitland, 190.

39. As to promissory notes, see article by Professor W. S. Holdsworth, "The Early History of Negotiable Instruments," 31

Law Quart. Rev. at p. 17.

40. Fitzpatrick v. Brigman, 130 Ala. 450, 30 So. 500; Russell v. May, 77 Ark. 89, 90 S. W. 617; Follmer v. Rohrer, 158 Cal. 755, 112 Pac. 544; Flynn v. Flynn, 17 may be indicated.41 Accordingly, it is generally agreed that delivery does not necessarily involve anv manual transfer of the instrument,42 and provided an intention is indicated that the deed shall take effect, the fact that the grantor retains possession of the instrument is imidaho, 147, 104 Pac. 1030; Bowers v. Cottrell, 15 Jdaho, 221, 96 Pac. 936; Riegel v. Riegel, 243 111. 626, 90 N. E. 1108; Burkholder v. Casad, 47 Iud. 418; Sheldon v. Crane, 146 Iowa, 461, 125 N. W. 238; Doty v. Barker, 78 Kan. 636, 97 Pac. 964; Burk v. Sproat, 96 Mich. 404, 55 N. W. 985; Inger-soll v. Odendahj, 136 Minn. 428, 162 N. W. 525; Coulson v. Coul-son, 180 Mo. 709, 79 S. W. 473; Martin v. Flaharty, 13 Mont. 96, 32 Pac. 187, 19 L. R. A. 242, 40 Am. St. Rep. 415; Flannery v. Flannery, 99 Neb. 557, 156 N. W. 1065; Vreeland v. Vreeland, 48 N. J. Eq. 56, 21 Atl. 627; Fisher v. Hall, 42 N. Y. 416; Lee v. Parker 171 N. C. 144, 88 S. E. 217; Mitchell's Lessee v. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 377; Johnson v. Craig, 37 Okla. 378, 130 Pac. 581; Sapping-field v. King, - Ore. - 8 L. R. A. N. S. 106; Hannah v. Swarnet, 8 Watts (Pa.) 11; Mccartney v. Mccartney, 93 Tex. 359, 55 S. W. 310; Matson v. Johnson, 48 Wash. 256, 125 Am. St. Rep. 924, 93 Pac. 324; Glade Coal Min. Co. v. Harris, 65 W. Va. 152, 63 S. E. 873. In Cox v. Schnerr, 172 Cal. 371, 156 Pac. 509, it is in effect said that though the grantor Intends, in handing the instrument to the grantor, to make it operative as a conveyance, there is no delivery if it is procured by fraud. This is, it is submitted, erroneous. The intention exists, and hence there is a delivery, though the intention is based on a misconception wrongfully induced. There are almost numberless decisions recognizing that the legal title passes in such case.

41. Delivery, being a question of intention, is one of fact, for the jury. Murray v. Stair, 2 Barn. & C. 82; Fitzpatrick v. Brigman, 133 Ala. 242, 31 So. 940; Donahue v. Sweeny, 171 Cal. 388, 153 Pac. 708; Emmons v. Harding, 162 Ind. 154, 1 Ann. Cas. 864, 70 N. E. 142; Brann v. Monroe, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 324; Bishop v. Burke. 207 Mass. 133, 53 N. E. 254; O'rourke v. O'rourke, 130 Minn. 292, 153 N. W. 607; Hurlburt v. Wheeler, 40 N. H. 73; Jones v. Swayze, 42 N. J. L. 279; Crain v. Wright, 36 Hun. 74, 114 N. Y. 307: Ar-'-hambeau v. Edmunson, 87 Ore. 476, 171 Pac. 186; Fisher v. Kean, 1 Watts (Pa.) 278; Kana-well v. Miller, - Pa. - 104 Atl. 861; Mccartney v. Mccartney, 93 Tex. 359, 55 S. W. 310; Dwinell v. Bliss, 58 Vt. 353, 5 Atl. 317; Holly St. Land Co. v. Beyer, 4,8 Wash. 422. 93 Pac. 1065; Garrett v. Goff, 61 W. Va. 221, 56 S. E. 351; Kittoe v. Willey, 121 Wis. 548, 99 N. W. 337.

42. Gulf Red Cedar Co. v. Crenshaw, 169 Ala. 606, 53 So. 812; Faulkner v. Feazel, 113 Ark. 289, 168 S. W. 568: Smith v.

Material.43 So, while it is frequently said, both by the older and later authorities, that delivery may be made to a third person for the benefit of the grantee,44 meanmay, 3 Penn. (Del.) 233, 50 Atl. 59; Benneson v. Aiken, 102 111. 284, 40 Am. Rep. 592; Hoyt v. Northup, 256 111. 604, 100 N. E. 164; Prince v. Prince, 258 111. 304, 101 N. E. 608; Fitzgerald v. Goff, 99 Ind. 28; Newton v. Beater. 41 Iowa, 334; Pentico v. Hays, 75 Kan. 76, 88 Pac. 738, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 224; Kirby v. Hulette, 174 Ky. 257, 192 S. W. 63; Byers v. Mcclanahan, 6 Gill. & J. (Md.) 250; Creeden v. Ma-honey, 193 Mass. 402, 79 N. E. 776; Thatcher v. St. Andrews Church, 37 Mich. 264; Chastek v. Souba, 93 Minn. 418, 101 N. W. 618; Young v. Elgin-(miss.) -27 So. 595; Lee v. Parker, 171 N. C. 144, 88 S. E. 217; Dukes v. Spangler, 35 Ohio St. 119; Kanawell v. Miller, - Pa. - 104 Atl. 861; Farrar v. Bridges, 5 Hump. (Tenn.) 411; Watson v. Johnson, 48 Wash. 256, 125 Am. St. Rep. 924. 93 Pac. 324.

43. Doe d. Garnons v. Knight,

5 Barn. & C. 671; Xenos v. Wick-ham, L. R. 2 H. L. 296; Austin v. Fendall, 2 Macarthur (D. C.) 362; Otis v. Spencer, 102 111. 622, 40 Am. Rep. 617; Colee v. Colee, 122 Ind. 109, 17 Am. St. Rep. 345; Bunnell v. Bunnell, 111 Ky. 566, 64 S. W. 420, 65 S. W. 607; Moore v. Hazelton, 9 Allen (Mass.) 102; Stevens v. Hatch,

6 Minn. 64; Wall v. Wall, 30 Miss. 91, 64 Am. Dec. 147; Ruck-man v. Ruckman, 32 N. J. Eq. 259; Scrugham v. Wood, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 545, 30 Am. Dec.

75; Mitchell's Lessee v. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 377; Ledgerwood v. Gault, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 643; Thatcher v. Capeca, 75 Wash. 249, 134 Pac. 923.

So the fact that the grantor still has access to the instrument does not conclusively negative delivery. Strickland v. Griswold, 149 Ala. 325, 43 So. 105; Cribbs v. Walker, 74 Ark. 104, 85 S. W. 244; Kenniff v. Caulfield. 140 Cal. 34, 73 Pac. 803; Munro v. Bowles, 187 111. 346, 54 L. R. A. 864; Terry v. Glover, 235 Mo. 544, 139 S. W. 337; Payne v. Hallgarth, 33 Ore. 430, 54 Pac. 162; Wilson v. Wilson, 32 Utah 169, 89 Pac. 643.