Caverly v. Small
| Citation | 111 A. 300 |
| Parties | CAVERLY v. SMALL et al. |
| Decision Date | 05 October 1920 |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
Appeal from Supreme Judicial Court, Androscoggin County, in Equity.
Suit in equity by Helen A. E. Caverly, by her next friend, against Lizzie M. Small and others. From a decree confirming the report of the special master on an accounting between the parties, the defendants appeal. Appeal dismissed.
Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, HANSON, PHILBROOK, and WILSON, JJ.
Albert E. Verrill, of Auburn, for appellants.
Tascus Atwood, of Auburn, for appellee.
CORNISH, C. J. Appeal in equity. The facts upon which the bill rests are these: One Amos P. Foster, late of Auburn, died on March 26, 1913, leaving a will by the terms of which, after the payment of debts and funeral expenses, all his property was devised and bequeathed to his wife, Mary A. Foster, 'during her life." Then followed this provision:
"It is my intention and desire that my said wife shall hold and use to her benefit all the property real, personal and mixed owned by me at my decease, during her life the same as if absolutely hers, and at her death whatsoever of my estate may then be left, I give, bequeath and devise to my wife's niece, namely, Helen Annie Elizabeth Caverly, her heirs and assigns forever," etc.
In the fourth paragraph he still further expressed his intention by this clause:
"I wish it distinctly understood that I place no restrictions upon my said wife, Mary A. Foster, in regard to her use of my said estate, desiring and intending and I direct that she shall use and expend every dollar of the same if necessary for her care, comfort and support and may give good and sufficient deeds for that purpose."
The wife was nominated as executrix in the will, and was subsequently appointed and qualified. She afterwards filed an inventory, showing real estate of the value of $1,800. and goods and chattels amounting to $324.75. but filed no account of her executorship. Mrs. Foster subsequently sold the real estate, and deposited the proceeds in the First National Bank of Auburn, the predecessor of the First Auburn Trust Company. On October 3, 1917, Mrs. Foster died testate, bequeathing all her property, after the payment of debts and expenses, to Lizzie M. Small, one of the defendants, and nominating George C Webber, another of the defendants, as executor, and he was duly appointed.
The bill as amended alleges that there were deposits in various other savings institutions at the time of the death of Amos P. Foster, standing in his name or in the name of "A. P. Foster or Mary A. Foster," all of which formed a part of his estate, and the plaintiff prays for a determination of the ownership of said several sums, and further for an accounting of the estate of Amos P. Foster that came into the hands and possession of Mary A. Foster, in order to ascertain the balance under the terms of his will the plaintiff claims as belonging to her. The answer of Lizzie M. Small, the sole beneficiary under the will of Mrs. Foster, in effect alleges...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Usen v. Usen
...Statutes, Chapter 91, Section 63; Emery v. Bradley, 88 Me. 357, 34 A. 167; Redman v. Hurley, 89 Me. 428, 36 A. 906; Caverly v. Small et al., 119 Me. 291, 111 A. 300. In the instant case, neither the "evidence before the court below" nor "an abstract thereof, approved by the justice hearing ......
-
Wiktorowicz v. Haley
...accounting. Under appropriate circumstances such an accounting will be ordered by the Court upon equitable principles. Caverly v. Small (1920) 119 Me. 291, 111 A. 300. We need not here determine the nature and quantum of proof which would have been required of plaintiff, had she elected to ......
-
Sawyer v. White
...before us, and for that reason the appeal must be dismissed. The instant case is clearly within the rule stated in Caverly v. Small, 111 A. 300, 301, 119 Me. 291, 294. "No exceptions, however, were filed. Instead an appeal was taken, and an appeal in equity, like a general motion for a new ......
-
E. Maine Gen. Hosp. v. Harrison
...authority is specifically given. R.S. supra (section 36, subparagraph IV); Brackenbury v. Hodgkin, 116 Me. 399, 102 A. 106; Caverly v. Small, 119 Me. 291, 111 A. 300. The rule which limits courts of equity to cases where there is no adequate remedy at law, does not, speaking generally, appl......