Druker v. Druker

• Citation: 167 N.E. 638,268 Mass. 334
• Parties: DRUKER v. DRUKER et al.
• Decision Date: 10 September 1929
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

268 Mass. 334

167 N.E. 638

DRUKER

v.DRUKER et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Sept. 10, 1929.

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Harold P. Williams, Judge.

Bill by Edith Druker against Samuel Druker and another. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Henry Kahn and Robert Robinson, both of Boston, for appellant.

Samuel Bamber and Samuel J. Witkin, both of Boston, for appellees.

FIELD, J.

This is a bill in equity brought in the superior court by Edith Druker against her husband, Samuel Druker, herein referred to as the defendant, and the Atlantic National Bank of Boston, wherein the plaintiff alleges, with respect to a certain delicatessen store and lunch room, money on deposit in said bank in the name of the defendant and his ‘safe deposit vault’ in said bank and its contents; that ‘the plaintiff owns one-half interest in said delicatessen store and lunch room at No. 85 Leverett street, Boston, and one-half of the moneys on deposit in the Atlantic National Bank of Boston, and one-half of whatever property is in the safe deposit vault’; and prays that ‘it be decreed that the plaintiff is entitled to one-half interest in the delicatessen store and lunch room at No. 95 Leverett street, Boston, and to one-half of all moneys on deposit in the Atlantic National Bank of Boston belonging to the defendant Samuel Druker, and to one-half of the contents of the safe deposit box’ in said bank. The case was referred to a master, who filed a report. The evidence was not reported. The plaintiff, only, filed exceptions to the report. The judge made an order overruling them. A final decree was entered dismissing the bill, and the plaintiff appealed therefrom.

The question for determination here is whether the plaintiff has a right, enforceable in equity, to an undivided part of the property referred to in the bill of complaint which is held by the defendant. She contends that by reason of her contributions of money and labor to the acquisition of this property, and the understanding and agreement of the parties, she is entitled to one half of it.

The property referred to in the bill of complaint, as found by the master, ‘consists of the stock and fixtures in said store and lunch room at 95 Leverett street, the good will of the business, the amount of $3,647.28, with interest from October 20, 1928, and the balance in the checking account amounting to $89.01. The said store is still a going business.’ Said amount of $3,647.28 was in a savings account in the Atlantic National Bank of Boston on October 20, 1928. The checking account was in the same bank. The master made no finding as to any safe deposit box or contents thereof.

The facts found by the master as to the manner in which the property in question came into the hands of the defendant may be summarized as follows:

The plaintiff and the defendant in Russia were engaged to be married. They came to this country in 1921 at about the same time. The defendant worked in a delicatessen store. The plaintiff ‘took up dressmaking as a trade’ shortly after her arrival. ‘It was then contemplated and understood’ by the plaintiff and the defendant ‘that both of them would work hard and save money with the object of getting married and eventually going into business for their mutual benefit,’ and that ‘to achieve this object’ the plaintiff ‘would have to continue working as a dressmaker after the marriage.’ The plaintiff saved some money before her marriage, but the master does not find ‘that any part of the money so saved by her was given to the defendant for their joint benefit.’ They were married October 23, 1922. The plaintiff continued to work as a dressmaker until November 12, 1925, and turned over to her husband money which she saved, which, with his savings, were deposited in his name in the postal savings department of the post office. The master is ‘unable to state what these amounts were.’ Later a part of the money on deposit in this savings department was transferred to the savings department of the Atlantic National Bank to a account in the defendant's name.

In the fall of 1925 the premises at No. 95 Leverett street, Boston, were hired in the name of the defendant as lessee for the purpose of running a delicatessen store and lunch room. Fixtures were bought from the owner of the premises and a bill of sale thereof taken in the name of the defendant. Three months' rent was paid in advance. Stock in trade and furnishings were purchased. Payments were made from the savings deposits above referred to, $1,450 being withdrawn for the purpose, and from the sum of $250 borrowed from the plaintiff's mother, which was later repaid to her. After these payments and the withdrawal of $167.66 for a purpose which does not appear, a balance of $1 was left in the savings account in the Atlantic National Bank. The master finds that the expenditures made to start the business of a delicatessen store and lunch room were made ‘in furtherance of the object contemplated and in accordance with the understanding between the parties,’ namely, ‘going into business for their mutual benefit,’ but that ‘no special agreement with regard to the ownership of the store was made by the parties at the time the store was hired and the equipment was purchased.’

The plaintiff ‘gave considerable of her time and labor’ towards the operation of the business. The ‘proceeds of the store and lunch room were obtained from the result of her labors in conjunction with her husband's. No account * * * of her labor, or any books of account were kept. The money received was put in a cash register,’ to which both plaintiff and defendant had access. These proceeds were used for the support of themselves and their child. ‘No salary as such was paid either of them and no definite amount of money was drawn by either as representing his or her share of the profits of the business.’ From time to time money was deposited in the savings account in the Atlantic National Bank of Boston and in a separate checking account in the same bank, both in the name of the defendant. All checks drawn on this checking account were signed by the defendant.

The plaintiff and defendant have not lived together since October 19, 1928. The savings deposit in the Atlantic National Bank on October 20, 1928, amounted to $3,647.28, of which all but $1 was obtained from the business. This deposit was withdrawn on that date by the defendant and placed in a new account at the same bank in his name as trustee for a fictitious person. On October 24, 1928, the defendant notified the plaintiff to leave the store and lunch room.

Before November 9, 1928, when this suit was brought, the plaintiff ‘did not object to the money being deposited as aforesaid or the business being run’ in the name of the defendant. The master found that ‘although each contributed to the success of the undertaking * * * such contributions were made with the undersanding that they should work together as husband and wife for the mutual benefit of themselves and their child and to make provision for their joint welfare,’ and that, except for this, ‘neither of them at any time before suit was brought treated the transaction as a business deal or one calling for an accounting as between partners in business.’ From time to time both plaintiff and defendant ‘spoke of the store and business as ‘our’ store and ‘our’ business.' The master concluded, ‘subject to the ruling of the court on matters of law,’ ‘that the above facts do not disclose an intention that the [plaintiff] should receive a definite fraction or share of the property referred to in consideration of specific or definite services or money contributed by her.’ To this conclusion the plaintiff excepted.

There is jurisdiction in equity of suits between husband and wife ‘to secure her separate property, to prevent fraud, to relieve from coercion, to enforce trusts and establish other conflicting rights concerning property.’ Gahm v. Gahm, 243 Mass. 374, 376, 137 N. E. 876, and cases cited. See Moreau v. Moreau, 250 Mass. 110, 113, 145 N. E. 43;Young v. Young, 251 Mass. 218, 146 N. E. 574;O'Brien v. O'Brien, 256 Mass. 308, 152 N. E. 80;Cram v. Cram, 262 Mass. 509, 513, 160 N. E. 337.

The property stands in the name of the defendant. In its present form it was never the separate property of the plaintiff. Nor has the master found that there was fraud or coercion on the part of the defendant. In this respect the case differs from such cases as Frankel v. Fankel, 173 Mass. 214, 53 N. E. 398,73 Am. St. Rep. 266, and Powell v. Powell, 260 Mass. 505, 157 N. E. 639. See, also, Ciarlo v. Ciarlo, 244 Mass. 453, 139 N. E. 344; Cram v. Cram, supra. Because of the fact that the plaintiff and defendant are wife and husband it is obvious that the plaintiff can establish no right as a partner of the defendant (Voss v. Sylvester, 203 Mass. 233, 237, 89 N. E. 241), or as his employee (Humphrey's Case, 227 Mass. 166, 116 N. E. 412, L. R. A. 1918F, 193), or by reason of any contract with him (G. L. c. 209, § 2). She seeks therefore, in substance, to impress upon the property a trust for her individual benefit to the extent of one undivided half of it. Since the property is personalty, the lack of a ‘written instrument * * * creating or declaring’ a trust, which the statute of frauds makes essential in the case of a ‘trust concerning land,’ does not preclude the plaintiff from proving an express trust and thus limit her to proof of a trust which ‘may arise or result by implication of law.’ See G. L. c. 203, § 1. See, also, G. L. c. 259, §...