Appeal of Spitz

• Decision Date: 30 December 1887
• Parties: Appeal of SPITZ et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

14 A. 776

56 Conn. 184

Appeal of SPITZ et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 30, 1887.

Appeal from superior court, New Haven county.

Appeal by Henry B. Spitz and others, creditors of the estate of William M. Pemberton, an insolvent, from an allowance by the commissioners of the estate of a claim in favor of the wife of the insolvent.

T. H. Russell, for appellants. E. P. Arvine, for appellee.

BEARDSLEY, J. This is an appeal from the allowance by the commissioners on the insolvent estate of William M. Pemberton, assigned in trust for the benefit of his creditors, of the claim of his wife, Emily A. Pemberton. The appellants are creditors of the estate, whose claim was allowed by the commissioners. The case was referred by the superior court to a committee, from whose report it appears that said William M. and Emily A. were married in January, 1878; she then having a large property, which she had inherited, and he being without property. Between the 1st day of February, 1878, and the 26th day of May, 1886, he received from her various sums to the amount of about $30,000. Most of these sums were advanced by her upon his promise to repay the same, with interest. The others were the proceeds of her real estate sold by his advice, and upon his promise to invest the avails to better advantage, but which avails he applied to his own use. The committee finds that all of the testimony offered by the appellee in reference to the character of the various transactions out of which the claim of the appellee arose, consisted of the statements of Mrs. Pemberton as a witness as to the conversations which took place between herself and her husband in the absence of other witnesses. The appellant objected to the testimony of Mrs. Pemberton to such conversations upon two grounds: "First, that the wife cannot, in this proceeding, testify against her husband, or his estate, in reference to this matter; and, second, that her testimony was a statement of confidential communications made to the wife by the husband. The committee admitted the evidence, and the appellants remonstrated, upon this ground, against the acceptance of the report of the committee, and the court overruled the remonstrance. We think that the evidence was clearly admissible.

Commissioners on insolvent estates, and the superior court on appeal from their decisions, act both as courts of law and courts of equity. Collins v. Tillou, 26 Conn. 371. Mr. and Mrs. Pemberton were married after the statute of 1877 went into effect. That statute provides that, "in all marriages hereafter contracted, neither the husband nor wife shall acquire, by force of the marriage, any right to or interest in any property held by the other before marriage. * * * The wife shall have power to make contracts with third persons, and to convey to them her real or personal estate, in the same manner as if she were unmarried." Gen. St. 1888, § 2796. By this statute, in cases provided for by it, all the property of the wife owned by her when married became her sole and separate estate. Prior to its adoption the wife...