Anthony v. Anthony

• Decision Date: 05 January 1937
• Citation: 188 A. 724
• Parties: ANTHONY v. ANTHONY et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

188 A. 724

ANTHONY

v. ANTHONY et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Jan. 5, 1937.

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Androscoggin County, in Equity.

Suit by Gertrude B. Anthony against Alfred Williams Anthony and another. On report.

Bill dismissed.

Argued before DUNN, C. J., and STURGIS, BARNES, THAXTER, HUDSON, and MANSER, JJ.

John Adams Wickham, of New York City, and Skelton & Mahon, of Lewiston. for plaintiff.

Robinson & Richardson and Richard Small, all of Portland, and Fred H. Lancaster, of Lewiston, for defendants.

DUNN, Chief Justice.

This is a suit in equity, brought by a wife against her husband, primarily for an accounting. The allegations of the bill, in effect, are that, through the indorsement of checks drawn to her order, and by means of checks of which she was maker, plaintiff, from her individual funds, (a) instrusted to defendant, over a period of years, moneys, totaling a large sum, which he, in the stead of conserving, in and upon parol trust, for her ex-exclusive benefit, as he had agreed, invested in his own name; (b) that plaintiff defrayed legal obligations of defendant, under conditions entitling her to reimbursement. The Lewiston Trust Company is also named as defendant, to subject to execution any property confided to it by the first defendant, in trust relationship.

Prayer is for special and general relief.

Suits between spouses, with certain exceptions of equity suits involving the doctrine of separate estate, to prevent fraud, to relieve from coercion, to enforce trusts, and to establish other conflicting rights concerning property, are not authorized in Maine. The statutory provision, Revised Statutes, c. 74, § 5, that a married; woman may, in her own name, and as though she were single, prosecute and defend suits at law or in equity, either in tort or contract, for the preservation and protection of her property and personal rights, or for the redress of her injuries, does not empower the wife to sue her husband at law. As to actions on contracts with her husband, or for torts committed by him, the common-law immunity of the husband, and disability of the wife, remains, at least during coverture. Perkins v. Blethen, 107 Me. 443, 78 A. 574, 31 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1148; Mott v. Mott, 107 Me. 481, 78 A. 900; Greenwood v. Greenwood, 113 Me. 226, 93 A. 360; Sacknoff v. Sacknoff, 131 Me. 280, 282, 161 A. 669. That is the general rule. Some special ground for relief, as those hereinbefore enumerated, must be substantiated, that the equitable jurisdiction, whether at common law, or as statute has broadened its scope, may be invoked. R.S. c. 74, § 6; Walbridge v. Walbridge, 118 Me. 337, 108 A. 105.

The case at bar is presented on report. The printed record comprises bill, demurrer (which, exception saved, the justice below overruled), amended bill, pleas, answers, and all the evidence.

There is no need to discuss at length any legal principle; the cause calls for application of no rule of law except that applying where, as here, and regardless of the nature of particular transactions, that is, if they be such as to impose fiduciary duties, or indicate otherwise what would be cognizable in equity, plaintiff's proof, conceding thereto for the moment full convincing power, is met by evidence which negatives her prevailing.

The transcript may be summarized briefly.

Plaintiff and defendant, persons of high intelligence and culture, residents of Lewiston, Me., were married in 1903. The family home was in that city. In 1915, plaintiff, as beneficiary under a trust created by her father's will, became the recipient of installments of income approximating, on average, upwards of $18,000 annually. During the years 1915 to 1919, both inclusive, plaintiff, so she testifies, transferred her income checks to defen...