Daniels v. Daniels.
| Decision Date | 07 December 1922 |
| Citation | 243 Mass. 283 |
| Parties | WILLIAM F. DANIELS v. SARAH W. DANIELS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
December 6, 1922.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., DE COURCY CROSBY, PIERCE, & CARROLL, JJ.
Equity Pleading and Practice, Amendment, Appeal.
After rescript of this court affirming a final decree dismissing a suit in equity by a husband against his wife to establish a trust for his benefit in real estate conveyed to her during coverture which had been referred to and fully tried before a master the plaintiff moved to amend his bill to enable him to recover the value of the real estate on an implied contract. The judge denied the motion, ruling, The plaintiff appealed. Held, that
(1) The denial not only was not arbitrary and capricious nor an abuse of power but was plainly right;
(2) The appeal was frivolous; (3) The decree was affirmed with double eosts.
BILL IN EQUITY filed with a common law writ of summons and attachment dated April 30, 1918, seeking to compel the defendant to reconvey to the plaintiff two parcels of real estate alleged to have been purchased by the plaintiff with his own funds in 1906 and 1913, respectively, and placed in the name of the defendant, then the plaintiff's wife, and also certain Liberty bonds, an account in the Boston Five Cents Savings Bank and a co-operative bank account, which the plaintiff alleged be owned and placed in the name of the defendant "as a matter of convenience, she having, however, no real or beneficial interest therein." The plaintiff further alleged that on February 23, 1918, the defendant left his home without justifiable cause.
In the Superior Court, the suit was referred to a master. Among other findings of the master were the following: "From the foregoing findings of facts, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, I am satisfied that the plaintiff had the title to the two parcels of real estate in question taken in the name of the defendant for his benefit and for her benefit and for the benefit of both of them as a family, with no thought of future separation, but with the idea that in the event of his death, his wife would have the property without the necessity of probating a will, or involving his estate in administration proceedings and I so find."
A motion to recommit the report and exceptions to the report were heard by Sisk, J., by whose order there was entered an interlocutory decree denying the motion and overruling the exceptions and a final decree dismissing the bill. Upon an appeal by the plaintiff, this court, in a decision reported in 240 Mass. 380 , affirmed the decree. After the filing of the rescript in the Superior Court, the plaintiff twice moved to amend his bill of complaint. By the first motion he sought to add to the bill allegations that in consequence of the facts alleged in the original bill the defendant held all of the real estate mentioned in the bill under an implied contract and obligation to pay the plaintiff the fair value thereof, and owed the plaintiff the fair value thereof, but fraudulently and in violation of the plaintiff's rights neglected and refused to pay the same to the plaintiff; and to add a prayer that the plaintiff's damages be assessed and the defendant be ordered to pay the same. The motion was heard and was denied by Wait, J., and the plaintiff appealed.
The plaintiff then filed a second motion to amend the original bill by alleging that the defendant impliedly promised the plaintiff that she would pay him the fair value of the real estate above described,...
To continue reading
Request your trial