Brown v. Daugherty

• Decision Date: 10 February 1903
• Citation: 120 F. 526
• Parties: BROWN v. DAUGHERTY et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

120 F. 526

BROWN v. DAUGHERTY et al.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division.

February 10, 1903

C. W Hamlin, John D. Porter, and W. D. Tatlow, for plaintiff.

Spencer & Spencer and Howard Gray, for defendants.

The petition alleges that in April, 1897, said bank, a Missouri corporation, by resolution of its stockholders, went into voluntary liquidation, and was thereby dissolved; that at the time of said dissolution the defendant Daugherty was president, and the other defendants were directors, of said corporation, and were the exclusive managers thereof; and that at the time of the dissolution there were sufficient assets and property of the bank to have paid off all of its indebtedness, including the $4,000 to plaintiff. It is then alleged that, under the provisions of the statute of the state (section 976, c. 12, art. 1, Rev. St. 1899) in force at the time in question, said officers of the bank became liable for said deposit, and it was their duty to have paid the same to plaintiff, after tendering the general issue, alleges that one Joseph Brown, the then husband of the plaintiff, came to the defendant's bank to deposit the sum of $4,000, which he then had on his person; that he stated to the officers of the bank, in making the deposit in the name of his wife, that all checks signed by him should be honored by said bank on said fund, and the bank should pay all checks signed by him in the plaintiff's name and that nearly all of said money so signed by said Joseph Brown; that when said bank dissolved there was about $700 on hand of said fund; and that, on the organization of the First National Bank of Carterville, the balance of said fund was turned over to the last-named bank and was checked out, prior to the institution of this suit that, if said money was that of the plaintiff, her said husband at the time of the deposit was her authorized agent to handle the money for her, and to sign her name to checks, and that long prior thereto, and while the same was being checked out, said Joseph Brown did business in his wife's name, and her funds. A jury being waived by stipulation of the parties, the cause was submitted to the court for hearing. The evidence showed that at the time of said deposit the name of the plaintiff, Louisa Brown, was entered by the cashier of the bank upon the register book as the depositor; and a passbook was handed by the cashier to said Joseph Brown, with the indorsement on the back thereof: 'Bank of Carterville, Carterville, Mo. In Account with Louisa Brown. ' On the first inside page of this passbook the caption is as follows: 'Dr. Bank of Carterville, in Account with Louisa Brown, Cr.' And underneath which are the words and figures: '1895, June 1 by Dept. 4,000.00. ' The credit side of this passbook shows that, in sums ranging from $50 to $500 (most generally in sums of $100), from month to month, this fund was checked out between the time of the deposit and April 10, 1897, with the exception of $700. This passbook Joseph Brown took home with him and showed to his wife just after the deposit, showing the deposit of $4,000 in her name. She never saw this passbook, nor the credits therein, nor was she aware that he had checked said fund out, until after their separation, some time in 1900. Said Carterville bank was dissolved, as alleged in the pleadings, leaving sufficient assets to pay said debts. Said balance of $700 was transferred by the

Bank of Carterville to the First National Bank of Carterville in April, 1897, which fund the latter bank entered to the credit of the plaintiff; the latter bank being managed by the same officers who conducted the Bank of Carterville. After said Joseph Brown had so drawn this fund from said banks and squandered it, he and his wife separated, and he sued her for a divorce, but on her cross-bill the divorce was granted to her. The said passbook issued by the Bank of Carterville having been found by the plaintiff's daughter in a private drawer at the home of the daughter of said Joseph Brown, where he lived after the separation, which passbook disclosed the fact of the abstraction of said fund by Joseph Brown, the plaintiff took legal advice, and suit was instituted in the state court for the recovery of the fund, which, for some reason was disclosed by the evidence, was discontinued, and this action was brought in this court. Other essential facts will sufficiently appear in the following opinion.

PHILIPS District Judge.

That the $4,000 deposited by Joseph Brown in the Bank of Carterville was the money of the plaintiff, the court is well satisfied. The plaintiff was a widow at the time of her marriage with Joseph Brown. She inherited from her first husband a small farm and some personal property situate in the state of Kansas, where she then resided. Joseph Brown at the time of his marriage to the plaintiff was practically impecunious. His only estate, according to his testimony, consisted in a claim to some land which he had entered in Kansas, which he sold shortly after his marriage, in about 1878, for about $1,400. About that time he and the plaintiff moved into the state of Missouri, where he squandered and consumed the proceeds of said sale of this Kansas claim, which satisfactorily appears, from the evidence to have been prior to the sale of the plaintiff's land in Kansas, which occurred in about 1883, at which time they were living in the state of Missouri. The amount realized on the sale of the plaintiff's said land was about $1,400. The evidence does not show whether or not this money was turned over to Jos. Brown in the state of Kansas. It was, however, brought into the state of Missouri.

By the statute of Kansas (section 3752, Gen. St. 1889) in force at the time in question, of which statute the federal court takes judicial cognizance--

'The property, real and personal, which any woman in this state may own, at the time of her marriage, and the rents, issues, profit or proceeds thereof, and any real, personal or mixed property which shall come to her by descent, devise or bequest, or the gift of any person except her husband, shall remain her sole and separate property, notwithstanding her marriage, and shall not be subject to the disposal of her husband, or liable for his debts.'

Even if the proceeds of the sale of the plaintiff's said property in Kansas was received by the husband, he received it in trust for her use and benefit. When it was brought into the state of Missouri, the domicile of the husband and wife, it became subject to the laws of the latter state.

By section 6869, Rev. St. Mo. 1889, in force at the periods in question in this suit, it was provided that:

'All real estate and personal property, including rights in action, belonging to any woman at her marriage, or which may come to her during coverture, by gift, bequest or inheritance, or by purchase with her separate money or means, or be dues as the wages of her separate labor, or has grown out of any violation of her personal rights, shall, together with all income, increase and profits thereof, be and remain her separate property and under her sole control, and shall not be liable to be taken by any process of law for the debts of her husband. This section shall not affect the title of any husband to any personal property reduced to his possession with the express assent of his wife: provided, that said personal property shall not be deemed to have been reduced to possession by the husband by his use, occupancy, care or protection thereof, but the same shall remain her separate property, unless by the terms of said assent, in writing, full authority shall have been given by the wife to the husband to sell, encumber or otherwise dispose of the same for his own use and benefit.'

There is no pretense that any assent in writing was ever given by the plaintiff to evidence his right of possession to this money. The statute positively interdicts any claim of right by or through him to this property, growing out of his possession, control, or management thereof, exclusive of the wife's absolute title, unless expressed in writing. His taking and using this money of the plaintiff is readily understood from the relative character and disposition of this man and wife, stood from the relative character and disposition of this man and wife, as the court observed them on the witness stand, and from the surrounding facts and circumstances. She is an illiterate woman, of little mentality and self-assertion, and easily imposed upon by such a man as Joseph Brown. He is a coarse man, of low instincts and little moral sense, who evidently regarded his wife as little more than a servant, with no rights he was bound to respect; holding her mind and property in complete subordination to his will and desires. Nolens volens, he took her money and invested it in mining property and in other adventures, and even in the saloon business. He employed her name in these transactions without her consent or request. She testified (and the court credits her statement) that if at any time, she made inquiry or sought information respecting the state of the business affairs, he would curse and repulse her, and therefore she shrunk from seeking such information. He testified that he made money out of these operations, and with the proceeds a farm was bought in Newton county, Mo., in 1885, which he claimed cost about $5,000, the deed for which was made to the plaintiff in fee simple. Where the wife's separate money is invested in other property or in business, and the same is managed by the husband in her name, the proceeds thereof remain the property of the wife. He does not thereby acquire either an exclusive or community interest therein under the married woman's act of this...