Fallon v. Fallon (In re Fallon's Estate)
| Decision Date | 18 February 1910 |
| Citation | 110 Minn. 213,124 N.W. 994 |
| Parties | In re FALLON'S ESTATE. FALLON v. FALLON. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Olmsted County; Arthur H. Snow, Judge.
Proceedings for settlement of the estate of William Fallon. There was a judgment allowing the claim of Maria Fallon, and William J. Fallon, administrator, appeals from an order denying a new trial. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Where by the contract of the parties, express or implied, the money or debt, which is the subject-matter thereof, is payable only upon demand in fact, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until an actual demand for the payment is made.
The demand, however, must be made within a reasonable time, which is ordinarily the period of the statute of limitations; but, where the parties contemplated a delay in making the demand to some indefinite time in the future, the statutory period for bringing the action is not controlling as to the question of reasonable time.
A party as a general rule is not chargeable with interest unless on his part there is a promise, express or implied, to pay it. An implied contract to pay interest arises where the circumstances of a transaction justify the inference that the parties contracted with reference to interest.
The respondent, as found by the trial court, deposited with her brother, the appellant's intestate, money, upon the understanding that it should be kept and used by him for an indefinite time in the future, and be paid to her upon an actual demand therefor. She is not chargeable with unreasonable delay, nor laches, in failing to demand payment before his death which occurred 23 years after the last deposit was made. Held, that the facts found are sustained by the evidence, that her claim for the money was not barred at the time of his death, either by the statute of limitations or laches, and that she is entitled to interest thereon.
Burt W. Eaton and Joseph A. Bear, for appellant.
Brown, Abbott, & Somsen, for respondent.
The respondent herein presented to the probate court a claim for allowance against the estate of her deceased brother, William Fallon. It was disallowed, and she appealed to the district court of Olmsted County, and the case was tried by the court without a jury.
The facts found by the court are substantially these: The respondent, Maria Fallon, is a sister of William Fallon, deceased. She came to this country from Ireland about the year 1870, and since that time she has been engaged in domestic service, having never married. At various times between the year 1870 and June 21, 1884, she delivered and intrusted to her brother William divers sums of money saved from her wages, aggregating at least $500. These sums were so delivered and intrusted to him for safe-keeping, upon the understanding and agreement that he would return and repay the moneys so intrusted to him, with interest thereon, at any time she might call for or actually demand the same. On June 21, 1884, her brother William married, and she thereafter deposited no money with him. He died intestate on July 31, 1907. She never demanded from him any part of the money so delivered to him, or the interest thereon, nor has any part of either ever been paid. She is not chargeable with unreasonable delay, nor laches, in failing to demand payment of the money from her brother before his death.
As a conclusion of law judgment was ordered in favor of the respondent for $500, with interest at 6 per cent. per annum from June 21, 1884. The administrator appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The first contention of the appellant to be considered is to the effect that the findings of fact necessary to the support of the conclusion of law are not justified by the evidence. The evidence is ample to sustain the finding that the respondent, prior to the marriage of her brother William on June 21, 1884, did deliver and intrust money to him from time to time, which in the aggregate amounted to $500. She so testified, and she was corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses. The evidence as to the understanding between the parties with reference to the money delivered by her to her brother William is less direct and certain; but it must be considered with reference to the relation of the parties and the circumstances under which the money was delivered as disclosed by the evidence. The evidence justifies the inference that she was a prudent, hard-working woman, who was able to save a part of her wages as a domestic servant, and that she desired a depository for her money where it would be safely kept until such indefinite time in the future as she should need and call for it. Her brother William was older than she, and was a thrifty farmer and good business man, in whom she had confidence, who was buying land and in a situation to use advantageously her money. She never made her home with her brother. It was under such circumstances that the money was delivered to her brother as she earned it. This negatives any presumption that she intended the money to be a gift to her brother. There was competent evidence, in the nature of admissions made by William, fairly tending to establish the agreement upon which the money was deposited with him, which was sufficient, if credible, to sustain the findings of the trial court. A brother of the parties, Garret Fallon, testified that about the time his brother William was married he said that he had made an agreement with the respondent to keep the money for her until she called for it, and would pay her interest on it. Another witness testified that he heard William, about the time he was married, say to the respondent not to be alarmed about her money, and that whenever she called for it she would get it; and a third witness testified that she heard him say to the respondent, some two years before his death, that she need not worry about her money, as he would give her good interest. The credibility of the witnesses was a matter entirely for the trial court. We hold that the findings of fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial