Church v. Church

• Decision Date: 16 April 1923
• Citation: 120 A. 428
• Parties: CHURCH v. CHURCH et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

120 A. 428

CHURCH

v. CHURCH et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

April 16, 1923.

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Somerset County, at Law.

Petition for review by William W. Church against Charles F. Church and another, as administrators. On report from Supreme Judicial Court, at law. Judgment directed for defendants in review.

Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, PHILBROOK, DUNN, WILSON, and DEASY, JJ.

Fellows & Fellows, of Bangor, for plaintiff.

Merrill & Merrill, of Skowhegan, for defendants.

CORNISH, C. J. At the January term, 1919, of the Supreme Judicial Court for Somerset county, William W. Church was defaulted in an action of assumpsit brought against him by Charles F. Church, guardian of Eunice Church, the mother of both Charles and William, at the September term, 1917. Eunice Church died on August 23, 1917, a short time prior to the entry of the writ, and the action was prosecuted by her administrators, Charles F. Church and Isaiah F. Crowell.

Judgment at said January term, 1919, in the sum of $1,822.92 debt and damage, and $36.41 costs, was obtained by default and was paid by said William W. Church.

Upon petition therefor a review was granted, and the case is now before the law court on an agreed statement of facts. For the sake of brevity and convenience, we shall speak of Mrs. Church, the plaintiff in the original action, as the plaintiff here, although her adminstrators are defendants in this writ of review, and we shall speak of William W. Church, the original defendant, as the defendant here, although he is really the plaintiff in this writ of review. Thus we shall consider the cause as if tried on the original writ.

The situation is this:

That the original writ was an action for money had and received to recover the income of a certain trust fund of $1,600, held by William W. Church as trustee for the benefit of his mother, under a trust agreement dated September 4, 1899. From this agreement it appears that William Church, the husband of Eunice, died in 1897, leaving a will under which his widow was given a life interest in certain real estate, and at her decease it was to become the property of his eight children in equal shares. In 1899 the buildings on his land, together with their contents, were burned, and the insurance was adjusted on the basis of $1,600 for the loss on the buildings and $471.75 on the contents.

This trust agreement was then entered into by the widow and all the children, by the terms of which the widow was to receive forthwith the $471.75, less any expense connected with the insurance settlement, and the income for life from the $1,600; the language being as follows:

"The $1,600 shall be deposited by the said William W. Church in some savings bank or institution in the state of Maine, to be named by the said Eunice Church, to be kept on deposit by the said William W. Church in trust for the following purposes: First, all the annual net income therefrom shall be paid to the said Eunice Church during her lifetime; and, second, at her death the money shall be with drawn by the said William W. Church and divided equally among the other parties to this agreement."

The $471.75 was duly paid over to the plaintiff and is not involved in this action. The controversy arises over the annual income from the $1,600 fund, which it is agreed was deposited in three banks, the Augusta Savings Bank, the Waterville Savings Bank, and the Pittsfield Trust Company, and the income from which at 4 per cent., payable semiannually, was received by William W. Church up to the time of the death of Eunice on August 23, 1917.

The original suit was brought to recover all this income. The defendant pleaded payment, and introduced in evidence 18 receipts and checks as proof of such payments.

It is agreed that the proceeds of 16 of these, aggregating $980.50, were received by the plaintiff. The genuineness of the other two, aggregating $201.50, is left to the court to decide. Assuming these to be genuine, the total amount of payments by the defendant to the plaintiff was $1, 182.

The precise issue before the court is whether these payments, or any of them, were made by the defendant under this trust agreement, and on account of the income or dividends due to the plaintiff from the savings bank deposits. The defendant-contends that they were; the plaintiff, that they were not.

What is the situation as a matter of evidence? Where rests the burden of proof? The defendant having admitted the receipt of the corpus of the trust fund and of the income at 4 per cent. up to the time of the death of the beneficiary, and having set up the defense of payment of the income to the beneficiary, the burden of proving such payment rests upon him. He must prove the discharge of his legal obligations as trustee. The plaintiff contends that that burden is not satisfied by merely showing payments of money to the beneficiary at various times, but that the defendant must go further, and prove by some affirmative evidence that the various payments were made upon this particular debt. The defendant insists that he has met the burden of proof by merely showing these payments. This raises a question of law somewhat novel in this state.

We think the position of the plaintiff is the one logically tenable. The burden is on the defendant to prove that this particular obligation, on which he is sued, was paid. The rule based on reason and authority seems to be well settled that, if it appears that there were two or more obligations or business dealings between the parties calling for the payment of money, then the mere payment is not sufficient to meet the burden of proving it was paid in discharge of a particular one. The evidence is...