Daniels v. Daniels
| Decision Date | 02 March 1922 |
| Parties | DANIELS v. DANIELS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; J. H. Sisk, Judge.
Suit by William F. Daniels against Sarah W. Daniels. From a final decree in favor of defendant, and from orders denying a motion to recommit, and overruling exceptions to the master's report, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The bill of complaint alleged that complainant contracted to purchase two different pieces of land at different times, and that defendant consented to take the title in her own name on the understanding that the entire beneficial ownership was in complainant, who was to pay the consideration and was to be the sole owner, and that defendant was threatening to oust complainant from a tenement on one of the tracts. It prayed that defendant be ordered to execute a conveyance to the land. The answer alleged that each piece of property was given defendant as a gift by plaintiff outright and free and clear from any real or beneficial interest therein. Plaintiff testified with respect to each piece that he stated in defendant's presence that, though the title was to be taken in her name, she was to have no interest in it. The master refused to find that any such statements were made. The property had been rented and defendant's name was occasionally signed to the receipts for rent, but most frequently it was given in plaintiff's name. Defendant also posted a notice in writing to which she signed plaintiff's name requesting tenants to prevent coal teams from being driven on the lawns or walks, and also prepared a receipt to be signed by one doing work on one of the buildings, acknowledging receipt of payment from plaintiff. The master declined to rule that these writings constituted sufficient instruments in writing to comply with Rev. Laws, c. 147, § 1, and ruled, on the contrary, if within his province, that they did not create a trust. He found that plaintiff had title taken in defendant's name with no thought of future separation, but with the idea that in the event of his death defendant would have the property without probate or administration proceedings.
Hoy & O'Connell, James M. Hoy, and John M. Russell, all of Boston, for appellant.
W. Lloyd Allen and Nathan B. Bidwell, both of Boston, for appellee.
This is a suit in equity whereby the plaintiff, from whom the defendant, his former wife, has obtained a divorce for his wrong, seeks to compel conveyance to him of certain parcels of real estate. These parcels were conveyed to the defendant when she and the plaintiff were living together happily as husband and wife. The case was referred to a master under a rule which required him ‘to hear the parties and their evidence and report his findings to the court * * * together with such facts and questions of law as either party may request.’ This did not require a report of the evidence or any part of it. The duty of the master was performed when he reported such facts pertinent to the issues as he found and such as he was requested by either party to find, with his rulings of law. Warfield v. Adams, 215 Mass. 506, 102 N. E. 706;Bradley v. Borden, 223 Mass. 575, 586, 112 N. E. 416;Mathews v. Colburn, 215 Mass. 571, 102 N. E. 941;Aronson v. Orlov, 228 Mass. 1, 9, 116 N. E. 951. The master was sufficiently favorable to the plaintiff in the form of his report and the treatment of requests for findings and rulings. Cook v. Scheffreen, 215 Mass. 444, 102 N. E. 715.
There was no error of law in drawing an unfavorable inference against the plaintiff because he failed to call available witnesses to corroborate his version of conversations between himself and wife. Howe v. Howe, 199 Mass. 598, 85 N. E. 945,127 Am. St. Rep. 516;Rioux v. Cronin, 222 Mass. 131, 135, 109 N. E. 898;Buckley v. Boston Elevated Ry., 215 Mass. 50, 56, 102 N. E. 75;McKim v. Foley, 170 Mass. 426, 49 N. E. 625.
The master's findings of fact are not reversible unless shown by the report to be erroneous. Greenhood...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A.T. Stearns Lumber Co. v. Howlett
...of the draft report, these exceptions must be overruled. Tuttle v. Corey, 245 Mass. 196, 203, 204, 140 N. E. 249;Daniels v. Daniels, 240 Mass. 380, 384, 134 N. E. 235. [24] Upon the question of damages, the master found, that ‘if upon the facts as found, the court is of opinion that, as mat......
-
General Outdoor Advertising Co., Inc. v. Department of Public Works
... ... [289 Mass. 207] ... by these proceedings. The same is true of other grounds set ... forth in this motion. Daniels v. Daniels, 240 Mass ... 380, 385, 134 N.E. 235; Chamberlain v. Henry, 263 ... Mass. 63, 160 N.E. 317 ... 26 ... The ... ...
-
A.T. Stearns Lumber Co. v. Howlett
... ... these exceptions must be overruled. Tuttle v. Corey, ... 245 Mass. 196 , 203, 204. Daniels v. Daniels, 240 ... Mass. 380 , 384 ... Upon the question ... of damages, the master found, that "if upon the facts as ... found, ... ...
-
Quinn v. Quinn
...547, 91 N. E. 909;Pollock v. Pollock, 223 Mass. 382, 111 N. E. 963;Keown v. Keown, 230 Mass. 313, 315, 119 N. E. 785;Daniels v. Daniels, 240 Mass. 380, 134 N. E. 235;Ciarlo v. Ciarlo, 244 Mass. 453, 139 N. E. 344;Browdy v. Browdy, 250 Mass. 515, 145 N. E. 868;Moynihan v. Murphy, 253 Mass. 1......