Briggs v. Leonard
| Decision Date | 30 November 1927 |
| Citation | 261 Mass. 381,158 N.E. 794 |
| Parties | BRIGGS v. LEONARD. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Plymouth County; F. J. MacLeod, Judge.
Action by Nellie A. Briggs, administratrix of the estate of Hannah J. Leonard, deceased, against John Leonard, to collect money alleged to have been lent by the intestate to defendant. Verdict was directed for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exception sustained. Judgment for defendant.
J. E. Handrahan, of Brockton, for plaintiff.
J. J. Geogan, of Whitman, for defendant.
The plaintiff brings this action as administratrix of the estate of her sister, Hannah J. Leonard, to collect amounts alleged to have been lent by the intestate to the defendant, who was her brother. The defendant relies upon a gift to him by the intestate of the amounts involved. At the close of the evidence the presiding judge, upon a motion filed by the plaintiff, directed a verdict in her favor. The defendant excepted to this direction, and also to the refusal by the judge to make certain rulings requested by him.
It is recited in the exceptions that:
The defendant testified, and offered other evidence tending to show, that in 1915 he talked with the intestate respecting the purchasing of a home and that she offered to give the money for that purpose, and in that year gave him $400 without taking any writing or security therefor; that in 1917, having a mortgage on his property which the bank holding it desired paid, his sister gave him $2,000; that no writing or other form of indebtedness was then taken by her; that he never paid any interest on the sums so given him; that while she was on a visit at his house in May, 1924, she expressed a wish that he keep the money; that she made no claim to it, and thereafter she handed him the written instrument marked ‘A.'
The defendant further testified that, on two or three occasions subsequent to the delivery of the written instrument, the intestate told him:
‘That she was angry with her two sisters, that they had treated her badly, that she wanted the defendant to keep the $2,400 which he had, and that she wanted him to erect a suitable monument over her grave and to pay her funeral bills at the time of her death;’ that ‘upon several other occasions she expressed in similar language the same thing, saying that the money was his, that she made no further claim to it,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Millett v. Temple
...and cases collected; Bascombe v. Inferrera, 271 Mass. 296, 302, 171 N. E. 435. There is a sentence in the opinion in Briggs v. Leonard, 261 Mass. 381, 384, 158 N. E. 794, which standing alone is to the effect that oral statements of gift of a debt constitute sufficient proof. That sentence ......
-
Robinson v. Pero
...facts found, but involved inferences of fact. See Simpkins v. Old Colony Trust Co., 254 Mass. 576, 581, 151 N. E. 87;Briggs v. Leonard, 261 Mass. 381, 384, 158 N. E. 794. It ‘was open to him to decide that what the report set out required a different finding of fact.’ Robert v. Perron (Mass......
-
American Emp. Ins. Co. v. Webster
...done so, in reaching the conclusion that her uncle had made her a gift of the money. Tileston v. Tileston, 234 Mass. 530 . Briggs v. Leonard, 261 Mass. 381 . Robinson Pero, 272 Mass. 482 . Fall River National Bank v. Estes, 279 Mass. 380 . Ryder v. Donovan, 282 Mass. 551 . Cornell v. Noonan......
-
American Employers' Ins. Co. v. Webster
...393. Whether Miss Rowe received the money as a gift or as a trustee for the benefit of her uncle was a question of fact, Briggs v. Leonard, 261 Mass. 381, 158 N.E. 794, which was to be determined upon conflicting oral evidence, given entirely by interested witnesses. Howe v. Ripka, 199 Mass......