English v. English
| Decision Date | 01 January 1918 |
| Citation | 118 N.E. 178,229 Mass. 11 |
| Parties | ENGLISH v. ENGLISH et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Charles F. Jenney, Judge.
Suit by Alice T. English against Charles R. English and Mary E. Childs. From the decree, defendant English appeals. Decree affirmed.
Barton & Harding, of Boston, for appellant.
Edw. Everett, of Boston, for appellee.
The material facts as found by the judge of the superior court are, that the defendant in 1904 caused an estate then owned and occupied by himself and his family as a home to be conveyed to the plaintiff, his wife, intending ‘to reserve the real estate away from the vicissitudes of business,’ and not to give his wife any beneficial interest, but still to own the property if he happened to get into any financial difficulty.
He expected that thereby his family would be secured in a home with him free from the adversities of business, and relied on the willingness of his wife to convey the property as he might request.
There was no evidence that the wife procured the conveyance or made any promise to hold the property for her husband's benefit, or that she agreed to reconvey it to him at his request.
There was no mutual understanding between the two that she should hold the property for his benefit solely; but she received the conveyance for her own benefit and that of her husband and family.
The title to the property under these circumstances vested absolutely in the wife as between herself and husband. A husband and wife cannot make contracts with each other. R. L. c. 153, § 2; St. 1912, c. 304. When either pays money or transfers or conveys property to the other, there is no presumption that it is received in trust. If a trust is alleged to exist, it must be proved. In the absence of such proof, it must be deemed that the money, property or conveyance was received with the intention, that it be appliedto the use and benefit of either or both at the discretion of the recipient. Jacobs v. Hesler, 113 Mass. 157, 160, 161;Clark v. Patterson, 158 Mass. 388, 391, 33 N. E. 589,35 Am. St. Rep. 498.
The wife subsequently went to England to live, with the consent of her husband. She gave him at his request a power of attorney, which among other matters conferred power to sell or transfer the land in question. Later she refused without justification to return to Massachusetts to live with her husband, and he obtained a divorce from her for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hutchinson v. Hutchinson
...Mass. at 488, 489-491, 35 N.E.2d 659. See Chretien v. Chretien, 356 Mass. 463, 465, 252 N.E.2d 879 (1969). Contrast English v. English, 229 Mass. 11, 12, 118 N.E. 178 (1917), and Druker v. Druker, 268 Mass. 334, 339-340, 167 N.E. 638 The defendants, however, contend that the plaintiff's tes......
-
Ross v. Ross
...the entire purchase price. This rule is subject to the exception that where a husband or wife (as to the wife, see English v. English, 229 Mass. 11, 12, 118 N.E. 178 (1917); Hogan v. Hogan, 286 Mass. 524, 526, 190 N.E. 718 (1934), and Tenczar v. Tenczar, 332 Mass. 105, 106--107, 123 N.E.2d ......
-
Campagna v. Campagna
...fact that the wife contributed to an account in the husband's name did not give rise to a trust. 'It was held in English v. English, 229 Mass. 11, 12, 13, 118 N.E. 178, that when either husband or wife pays money or transfers property to the other, there is no presumption that it is receive......
-
Daniels v. Daniels
...175.Patterson v. Patterson, 197 Mass. 112.’ The case at bar on its merits is within the authority of numerous decisions. English v. English, 229 Mass. 11, 118 N. E. 178;Carr v. Frye, 225 Mass. 531, 114 N. E. 745, L. R. A. 1917E, 814;Keown v. Keown, 230 Mass. 313, 119 N. E. 785;Tileston v. T......