Angell v. Angell

• Decision Date: 19 March 1940
• Docket Number: No. 1453.,1453.
• Citation: 11 A.2d 922
• Parties: ANGELL v. ANGELL.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

11 A.2d 922

ANGELL

v. ANGELL.

No. 1453.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

March 19, 1940.

Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; G. Frederick Frost, Judge.

Suit in equity by Walter H. Angell against Louise Shierson Angell to recover half-interests in certain realty and intangible personalty. From a decree of dismissal, complainant appeals.

Appeal denied and dismissed, decree affirmed, and cause remanded.

Frank F. Davis and Emile H. Ruch, both of Providence, for complainant.

Roger L. McCarthy, of Providence, for respondent.

MOSS, Justice.

This is a suit in equity brought by a husband against his wife, soon after withdrawing from their common home and bringing a petition for divorce because of alleged cruel and abusive treatment by her. In his bill of complaint he seeks to have himself adjudged to be entitled in fee simple to an undivided half interest in certain real estate now standing in her name alone and to a half interest in certain intangible personal property held by her as her own.

The cause was heard in the superior court on the bill, answer, replication and proof; and the justice by whom it was heard filed a rescript in which he discussed the evidence and found that it did not establish, by a fair preponderance, that at or about the time of their marriage the parties had entered into an oral agreement relative to his earnings and their use, as alleged by the husband in his bill.

The trial justice in his rescript also found, in substance and effect, that the husband at the time of the marriage, on April 29, 1915, had accumulated no means and that the wife had $400; that he was then in the employment of a street railway company and continued to be so and in receipt of weekly wages until March, 1936, when he received serious injuries in the course of such employment, by reason of which he has since been unable to work at such labor and has been receiving $16 per week under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Gen.Laws 1938, c. 300, art. 1, § 1 et seq.; that from his marriage and down to the time of the separation above mentioned, he turned over his wages and compensation to his wife and let her control the expenditure of them; and that they have one son, born a few years after their marriage.

The trial justice also found in his rescript that although some of the husband's earnings may have gone into some of the wife's investments or into repairs on some real estate standing in her name, the evidence is not sufficient to show what fractional interest, if any, he equitably had in any of the wife's holdings; that the court could not find that any part of such holdings is being held by her in trust for the complainant; and that the latter therefore is not entitled to the relief for which he prays.

Thereafter a decree was entered that the bill of complaint be denied and dismissed. The complainant in due time filed an appeal therefrom, in which the reasons stated and now relied upon are, in effect, that the decree is against the evidence and the weight thereof and that it is against the law. The cause is now before us upon this appeal.

In discussing the facts, the testimony of the respondent will be accepted as correct, since the trial justice clearly believed that testimony, which was not contradicted except in some parts by the complainant, and the rescript and decree were in her favor.

The parcels of real estate that figure in the cause are all located in the city of Providence. The first parcel is on West River street and was a wedding present to both of the parties from the wife's mother, who insisted on putting it in both their names as joint tenants. It was held by them for about fourteen years, and rented, yielding little net income, and then was sold for $1,250.

This sum was deposited in an account, in the wife's name only, in a Pawtucket bank. It was later used, apparently with his consent, to buy an automobile costing about $1,000 and put into her sole name, and in erecting a garage upon a parcel of real estate on Pettis street, the title to which then stood, and at the time of the hearing still stood, in her name only.

This Pettis street property, which included a two-family house and two small single houses, was purchased by the wife, with the husband's assent, about two years after their marriage, for $2,000, of which she borrowed one half from her mother and the other half from her sister; and the title was put into her name only. She testified that it would have been put into the husband's name, if he had wished it so, but that he insisted that he did not wish it, because he had had trouble on the cars before he was married, which cost him some money, and he was afraid that he might get...