Adams v. Adams

Decision Date05 April 1941
Citation308 Mass. 584,33 N.E.2d 314
PartiesADAMS et al. v. ADAMS.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Petition by Winthrop G. Adams and others, executors of the will of Ella C. Adams, deceased, against Winthrop C. Adams for instructions as to the will of decedent. From decree entered, Winthrop C. Adams appeals.

Affirmed.Appeal from Probate Court, Suffolk County; Prest, Judge.

Argued before FIELD, C. J., an LUMMUS, QUA, COX, and RONAN, JJ.

F. S. Deland, of Boston, stated the case.

B. C. Perkins, of Boston, for respondent Winthrop C. Adams.

J. F. Groden and J. R. Spence, both of Boston, for respondent ethelinD adams.

J. B. Dolan, of Boston, guardian ad litem.

RONAN, Justice.

The executors of the will of Ella C. Adams seek instructions as to the ownership of certain securities, which they acquired by paying to a stockbroking firm the debit balance carried by this firm in an account opened by the testatrix by taking over an account that the respondent, Winthrop C. Adams, her son, had with other stockbrokers; and as to whether any indebtedness from Winthrop C. Adams to the testatrix has arisen out of the carrying of this account by her, and, if such indebtedness existed whether it was cancelled by the third clause of her will. The Probate Court by its decree instructed the executors that no debt was due from Adams to the estate in reference to this transaction, and that the securities were assets of the estate. Adams appealed from this decree.

The judge made a report of the material facts in substance as follows: Ella C. Adams died July 16, 1938, leaving two daughters and a son. Winthrop C. Adams and two others are the executors under her will, which was executed February 16, 1931. The will contained the following provision: ‘Third. I request that all notes of my children held by me and all debts due me from them shall be cancelled.’ At the time of her death Winthrop C. Adams owed his mother $9,000, which was represented by three notes. Nothing was owed by the daughters to their mother.

Winthrop C. Adams was carrying a marginal account with his brokers who, early in October, 1930, notified him that , unless additional collateral was furnished, the account would be closed out. He sought aid from his mother. She consulted counsel and, as a result, the son on October 10, 1930, gave her a letter authorizing her to take over his account, together with the collateral, and to put this collateral, which was to be marked with his initials, ‘W.C.A.,’ into her account. On the same date, the testatrix notified her brokers to pay from her account the debit balance on the account of her son with his brokers, and to receive the collateral on his account, and they were then to ‘carry the debit and these securities in may name, identifying the account with the initials ‘W.C.A.’ after my name.' Her brokers paid the son's brokers $33,670.95 and set up a new account with the testatrix in accordance with her instructions. The account when taken over was undermargined. Her brokers looked to her as the one responsible to them. She had large and ample collateral with them in her other accounts, and they never called upon her to furnish other collateral or to pay anything on this account. Dividends on the securities in this account were all credited to the account, except in one instance where the shares of one corporation stood in the name of the son and the dividends on these shares were received by him. He had no authority to trade in this account but from time to time certain changes were made in the collateral at the suggestion of the son to his mother's counsel. The son did not put any money or securities into the account while it was carried by his mother's brokers. He had frequently spoken to his mother about his inability to pay any part of the indebtedness and she told him ‘not to worry about it and that it would work out all right some time.’ The executors on October 10, 1938, paid the brokers $42,038.47 and received the collateral securities. The judge found that the son, who was both a respondent and one of the executors, ‘did not disclose to the Court what he put into the broker's account when it was opened, nor what purchases and sales were made thereafter,’ and instructed the executors that there was no debt due from the son to his mother arising out of the stock account and that the securities belonged to the estate.

This appeal is here with a transcript of the evidence and a report of the material facts. It is our duty to examine the evidence and come to our own conclusions, but we do not set aside findings of the judge unless they are shown to be plainly wrong. Trade Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Peters, 291 Mass. 79, 195 N.E. 900,Spiegel v. Beacon Participations, Inc., 297 Mass. 398, 8 N.E.2d 895. The appellant attacks the finding that there was no evidence that the son had borrowed any money from his mother unless he gave her a note. All that that finding means is that there was no satisfactory proof that he ever got a loan without giving a note. New Bedford Cotton Waste Co. v. Eugen C. Andres Co., 258 Mass. 13, 154 N.E. 263,Gowell v. Twitchell, 306 Mass. 482, 28 N.E.2d 531. The report does not set forth categorically what the agreement was between the son and his mother in pursuance to which she took over the account, but it fully sets forth the instructions by the testatrix to her counsel and the documents by which the account was transferred. If the appellant believed that the report of the material facts was not sufficiently full he should have requested the judge to amplify his findings. Plumer v. Houghton & Dutton Co., 277 Mass. 209, 178 N.E. 716;Greeley v. O'Connor, 294 Mass. 527, 2 N.E.2d 471;Boston v. Dolan, 298 Mass. 346, 10 N.E.2d 275.

The testatrix could have advanced enough money or securities to her son's brokers in order to enable him to continue the account or she could have paid the debit balance and permitted him to obtain the collateral. She declined to do either. She did not desire to make any loan to him. His collateral, however, included stock in a corporation in which her family had long been interested and she probably did not want that stock sold by the brokers. Her principal purpose was to tide him over his difficulties. It was in such circumstances that she had his account taken over by her brokers upon her credit. The payment to his brokers upon her credit at his request could, if the parties so intended, constitute a loan from her to him. Hare & Chase, Inc. v. Commonwealth Discount Corp., 260 Mass. 134, 156 N.E. 893,Finegan v. Prudential Ins. Co., 300 Mass. 147, 14 N.E.2d 172, 116 A.L.R. 535. The parties were not dealing with each other as strangers. The mother was not seeking any personal advantage or private gain. She could have acquired all the collateral, with the exception of the Haskell Adams stock, at less than she paid when she took over the account. She never requested him to put anything in the account or to close the account. She permitted him to retain the dividends received on a part of the collateral. He could have acquired the collateral by paying the debit balance.

There is no testimony that the mother ever agreed to charge him for any loss she might sustain. It may be that she would have turned over to him any profit that might have resulted. The record does not show that the parties ever discussed the distribution of profits or the payment of losses. She had carried the account for nearly eight years. She had dealt with her brokers for many years and, while this account was pending, they had other accounts with her and had in their possession securities belonging to her to the value of $600,000 or $700,000. They never made any requests upon her concerning the account in question. She was apparently content to have the account run along, hoping that some time he would pay the debit balance and take out the securities. Whether under all the circumstances a debt would result was a question of fact. Hawkes v. First National Bank of Greenfield, 261 Mass. 109, 158 N.E. 539;Fennell v. Russell, 282 Mass. 67, 184 N.E. 675;Ramseyer v. Conlon, 303 Mass. 270, 21 N.E.2d 272.

Even if we assume in favor of Winthrop C....

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Skil Corp. v. Barnet
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 7, 1958
    ...the plaintiff at most could have requested the judge to amplify his findings. He would not have been bound to do so. Adams v. Adams, 308 Mass. 584, 587, 33 N.E.2d 314; Colby v. Callahan, 311 Mass. 727, 728, 42 N.E.2d 801. See Berman v. Coakley, 257 Mass. 159, 161-162, 153 N.E. 463; Plumer v......
  • Harrington v. Donlin
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • December 29, 1942
    ...On this record such decree should be entered as justice requires. White Tower Management Corp. v. Taglino, 302 Mass. 453 , 456. Adams v. Adams, 308 Mass. 584, 586, and cases Donlin and his wife "brought up" the plaintiff, whose mother, a sister of Mrs. Donlin, died in 1917 when the plaintif......
  • Adams v. Adams
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1941
  • Paone v. Gerrig
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 5, 1973
    ...320 Mass 114, 115--116, 67 N.E.2d 756; and Vergnani v. Vergnani, 321 Mass. 699, 701--702, 75 N.E.2d 497. See also Adams v. Adams, 308 Mass. 584, 587, 33 N.E.2d 314; and Moutinho v. Moutinho, 342 Mass. 171, 172, 172 N.E.2d 596. To be sure, the alternative of requesting the judge to amplify h......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT